linux-kernel - Re: pxa3xx-nand failing to find device on linux-next

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 25 May 2017 22:12:12 +0000
From:   Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
CC:     "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>,
        "ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com" 
        <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: pxa3xx-nand failing to find device on linux-next

On 25/05/17 18:19, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Le Wed, 24 May 2017 22:58:53 +0000,
> Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz> a écrit :
> 
>> On 25/05/17 10:36, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> Le Wed, 24 May 2017 22:03:52 +0000,
>>> Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz> a écrit :
>>>    
>>>> On 24/05/17 23:25, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 May 2017 13:23:01 +0200
>>>>> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
>>>>>       
>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 May 2017 09:36:56 +0000
>>>>>> Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>> On 23/05/17 17:27, Chris Packham wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm doing some testing on linux-next and I'm finding that my nand flash
>>>>>>>> has disappeared.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pxa3xx-nand f10d0000.flash: This platform can't do DMA on this device
>>>>>>>> pxa3xx-nand f10d0000.flash: non-supported command ef
>>>>>>>> pxa3xx-nand f10d0000.flash: non-supported command ee
>>>>>>>> pxa3xx-nand f10d0000.flash: non-supported command ef
>>>>>>>> pxa3xx-nand f10d0000.flash: non-supported command ee
>>>>>>>> On-die ECC forcefully enabled, not supported
>>>>>>>> nand: No NAND device found
>>>>>>>> pxa3xx-nand f10d0000.flash: failed to scan nand at cs 0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This was working around 4.11. I'll try to do some more digging tomorrow
>>>>>>>> to narrow down a failure point but I thought I'd send this out now just
>>>>>>>> in case it rings any bells.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The board I'm using (DB-88F6820-AMC) is unfortunately out-of tree but it
>>>>>>>> should be pretty close to the armada-388-db. I can make my dts available
>>>>>>>> if it's helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still works on 4.12-rc2. Fails on next-20170524.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This appears to be due to commit b566d9c055de ("mtd: nand: add support
>>>>>>> for Micron on-die ECC"). Which based on the description seems intentional.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I have access to a hardware platform that has a micron flash with
>>>>>>> ECC forcefully enabled how can I help to get this implemented.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you try with this patch applied [1]?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, wrong patch. Can you try this one [1] instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]http://code.bulix.org/pkfhmi-135875
>>>>>       
>>>>
>>>> With the patch above the chip is detected but ubifs is unhappy
>>>
>>> Hm, weird. And if you revert my both Thomas patch and mine, what do you
>>> get?
>>
>> Seems to work just fine.
> 
> Okay. Let's try with something simpler then. Can you test the following
> patch?
> 
> --->8---
>  From 0a0eaa39ea9b19191ae0c31ff3625c224a8a55f2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
> Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 08:15:15 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] mtd: nand: pxa3xx: Implement failing
>   ->onfi_{set,get}_features() stubs
> 
> Implement stubs returning -ENOTSUPP for ->onfi_{set,get}_features() so
> that we don't let the core think we are supporting the GET/SET FEATURES
> operation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
> ---

Yep that seems to work.