[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OFC97D5691.B26644D3-ON48258423.002F8D47-48258423.00310B3E@mxic.com.tw>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 16:55:41 +0800
From: masonccyang@...c.com.tw
To: "Boris Brezillon" <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
Cc: bbrezillon@...nel.org, broonie@...nel.org,
christophe.kerello@...com, computersforpeace@...il.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dwmw2@...radead.org,
geert@...ux-m68k.org, juliensu@...c.com.tw, lee.jones@...aro.org,
liang.yang@...ogic.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com, marek.vasut@...il.com,
mark.rutland@....com, "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
paul.burton@...s.com, richard@....at, robh+dt@...nel.org,
stefan@...er.ch, zhengxunli@...c.com.tw
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mtd: rawnand: Add Macronix MX25F0A NAND controller
Hi Boris,
> > > > > Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mtd: rawnand: Add Macronix MX25F0A NAND
> > controller
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 08:14:36 +0200
> > > > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > How to make all #CS keep high for NAND to enter
> > > > > > > > > > > low-power standby mode if driver don't use
> > > > "legacy.select_chip()"
> > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > See commit 02b4a52604a4 ("mtd: rawnand: Make
> > ->select_chip()
> > > > > > > optional
> > > > > > > > > > when ->exec_op() is implemented") which states:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "When [->select_chip() is] not implemented,
the
> > core
> > > > is
> > > > > > > assuming
> > > > > > > > > > the CS line is automatically asserted/deasserted by
the
> >
> > > > driver
> > > > > > > > > > ->exec_op() implementation."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Of course, the above is right only when the controller
> > driver
> > > >
> > > > > > > supports
> > > > > > > > > > the ->exec_op() interface.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Currently, it seems that we will get the incorrect data
and
> >
> > > > error
> > > > > > > > > operation due to CS in error toggling if CS line is
> > controlled
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > ->exec_op().
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, and please provide the modifications you added on top of
this
> > patch.
> > > > > Right now we're speculating on what you've done which is
definitely
> > not
> > > > > an efficient way to debug this sort of issues.
> > > >
> > > > The patch is to add in beginning of ->exec_op() to control CS# low
and
> >
> > > > before return from ->exec_op() to control CS# High.
> > > > i.e,.
> > > > static in mxic_nand_exec_op( )
> > > > {
> > > > cs_to_low();
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > cs_to_high();
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > But for nand_onfi_detect(),
> > > > it calls nand_read_param_page_op() and then nand_read_data_op().
> > > > mxic_nand_exec_op() be called twice for nand_onfi_detect() and
> > > > driver will get incorrect ONFI parameter table data from
> > > > nand_read_data_op().
> > >
> > > And I think it's valid to release the CE pin between
> > > read_param_page_op() (CMD(0xEC)+ADDR(0x0)) and read_data_op() (data
> > > cycles) if your chip is CE-dont-care compliant. So, either you have
a
> > > problem with your controller driver (CS-related timings are
incorrect)
> > > or your chip is not CE-dont-care compliant.
> >
> > Understood, I will try to fix it on my NFC driver.
>
> Before you do that, can you please try to understand where the problem
> comes from and explain it to us? Hacking the NFC driver is only
> meaningful if the problem is on the NFC side. If your NAND chip does
> not support when the CS pin goes high between read_param_page_op() and
> read_data_op() the problem should be fixed in the core.
I think I have fixed the problem and the root cause is the our NFC's TX
FIFO counter
do a unnecessary reset in CS control function. Our NFC implement
read-write
buffer transfer to send command, address and data.
A unnecessary reset to TX FIFO will send a command byte out first and this
extra
command will make something wrong to next operation.
For now, doing CS# control in ->exec_op() is OK to me.
thanks & best regards,
Mason
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be
reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail
(and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive
this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as
well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be
informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is
prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
============================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information and/or personal data, which is protected by applicable laws. Please be reminded that duplication, disclosure, distribution, or use of this e-mail (and/or its attachments) or any part thereof is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this mail as well as its attachment(s) from your system. In addition, please be informed that collection, processing, and/or use of personal data is prohibited unless expressly permitted by personal data protection laws. Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Macronix International Co., Ltd.
=====================================================================
Powered by blists - more mailing lists