linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH nand-next 0/2] meson-nand: support for older SoCs

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 7 Mar 2019 21:36:36 +0800
From:   Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com>
To:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
CC:     <mark.rutland@....com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <jianxin.pan@...ogic.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH nand-next 0/2] meson-nand: support for older SoCs

Hi Martin,

On 2019/3/7 21:09, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com> wrote on Tue,
> 5 Mar 2019 23:12:51 +0100:
> 
>> Hi Liang,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 5:55 AM Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Martin,
>>>
>>> On 2019/3/2 2:29, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
>>>> Hi Liang,
>>>>
>>>> I am trying to add support for older SoCs to the meson-nand driver.
>>>> Back when the driver was in development I used an early revision (of
>>>> your driver) and did some modifications to make it work on older SoCs.
>>>>
>>>> Now that the driver is upstream I wanted to give it another try and
>>>> make a real patch out of it. Unfortunately it's not working anymore.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I know the NFC IP block revision on GXL is similar (or even
>>>> the same?) as on all older SoCs. As far as I can tell only the clock
>>>> setup is different on the older SoCs (which have a dedicated NAND
>>>> clock):
>>>> - we don't need the "amlogic,mmc-syscon" property on the older SoCs
>>>>     because we don't need to setup any muxing (common clock framework
>>>>     will do everything for us)
>>>> - "rx" and "tx" clocks don't exist
>>>> - I could not find any other differences between Meson8, Meson8b,
>>>>     Meson8m2, GXBB and GXL
>>>>   
>>> That is right. the serials NFC is almost the same except:
>>> 1) The clock control and source that M8-serials are not share with EMMC.
>>> 2) The base register address
>>> 3) DMA encryption option which we don't care on NFC driver.
>> great, thank you for confirming this!
>>
>>>> In this series I'm sending two patches which add support for the older
>>>> SoCs.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately these patches are currently not working for me (hence the
>>>> "RFC" prefix). I get a (strange) crash which is triggered by the
>>>> kzalloc() in meson_nfc_read_buf() - see below for more details.
>>>>
>>>> Can you please help me on this one? I'd like to know whether:
>>>> - the meson-nand driver works for you on GXL or AXG on linux-next?
>>>>     (I was running these patches on top of next-20190301 on my M8S
>>>>     board which uses a 32-bit Meson8m2 SoC. I don't have any board using
>>>>     a GXL SoC which also has NAND)
>>> Yes, it works on AXG platform using a MXIC slc nand flash(MX30LF4G); but
>>> i an not sure it runs the same flow with yours. because i see the print
>>> "Counld not find a valid ONFI parameter page, ...." in yours. i will try
>>> to reproduce it on AXG(i don't have a M8 platform now).
>> I'm looking forward to hear about the test results on your AXG boards
>> for reference: my board has a SK Hynix H27UCG8T2B (ID bytes: 0xad 0xde
>> 0x94 0xeb 0x74 0x44, 20nm MLC)
>> I have another board (where I haven't tested the NFC driver yet) with
>> a SK Hynix H27UCG8T2E (ID bytes: 0xad 0xde 0x14 0xa7 0x42 0x4a, 1Ynm
>> MLC). if it helps with your analysis I can test on that board as well
> 
> Liang, you just have to fake the output of the ONFI page detection and
> you will probably run into this error which will then be easy to
> reproduce.
>

I have tested it on AXG platform; I find MX30LF4G also enter this flow , 
but it doesn't crash. log as follow:
[    1.018056] Could not find a valid ONFI parameter page, trying 
bit-wise majority to recover it
[    1.021057] ONFI parameter recovery failed, aborting
[    1.025966] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xc2, Chip ID: 0xdc
[    1.032237] nand: Macronix NAND 512MiB 3,3V 8-bit
[    1.036889] nand: 512 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, 
OOB size: 64
[    1.045741] Bad block table not found for chip 0
[    1.050077] Bad block table not found for chip 0
[    1.053538] Scanning device for bad blocks
[    1.069094] Bad eraseblock 20 at 0x000000280000
[    1.071074] Bad eraseblock 24 at 0x000000300000
[    1.127494] random: fast init done
[    1.348754] Bad eraseblock 519 at 0x0000040e0000
[    1.632819] Bad eraseblock 1028 at 0x000008080000
[    2.405420] Bad eraseblock 2411 at 0x000012d60000
[    3.349276] Bad block table written to 0x00001ffe0000, version 0x01
[    3.350967] Bad block table written to 0x00001ffc0000, version 0x01
[    3.356429] 5 fixed-partitions partitions found on MTD device 
ffe07800.nfc
[    3.362925] Creating 5 MTD partitions on "ffe07800.nfc":
[    3.368188] 0x000000000000-0x000000200000 : "boot"
[    3.373970] 0x000000200000-0x000000600000 : "env"
[    3.378564] 0x000000600000-0x000001000000 : "system"
[    3.383511] 0x000001000000-0x000004000000 : "rootfs"
[    3.388525] 0x000004000000-0x00000c000000 : "media"

I am looking forward to a Hynix nand flash to test on GXL platform, and 
there should be something different from MXIC flash on ONFI page 
detection. I will update the result asap net week.
Do you have another type of nand flash to test on M8 platform ?
> 
> Thanks,
> Miquèl
> 
> .
>