Hi Álvaro, noltari@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 12:21:11 +0100: > El vie, 24 mar 2023 a las 11:49, Miquel Raynal > (<miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>) escribió: > > > > Hi Álvaro, > > > > noltari@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 11:31:17 +0100: > > > > > Hi Miquèl, > > > > > > El vie, 24 mar 2023 a las 10:40, Miquel Raynal > > > (<miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>) escribió: > > > > > > > > Hi Álvaro, > > > > > > > > noltari@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 23 Mar 2023 13:45:09 +0100: > > > > > > > > > Add new "mxic,disable-block-protection" binding documentation. > > > > > This binding allows disabling block protection support for those devices not > > > > > supporting it. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand-macronix.txt | 3 +++ > > > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand-macronix.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand-macronix.txt > > > > > index ffab28a2c4d1..03f65ca32cd3 100644 > > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand-macronix.txt > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand-macronix.txt > > > > > @@ -16,6 +16,9 @@ in children nodes. > > > > > Required NAND chip properties in children mode: > > > > > - randomizer enable: should be "mxic,enable-randomizer-otp" > > > > > > > > > > +Optional NAND chip properties in children mode: > > > > > +- block protection disable: should be "mxic,disable-block-protection" > > > > > + > > > > > > > > Besides the fact that nowadays we prefer to see binding conversions to > > > > yaml before adding anything, I don't think this will fly. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure exactly what "disable block protection" means, we > > > > already have similar properties like "lock" and "secure-regions", not > > > > sure they will fit but I think it's worth checking. > > > > > > As explained in 2/2, commit 03a539c7a118 introduced a regression on > > > Sercomm H500-s (BCM63268) OpenWrt devices with Macronix MX30LF1G18AC > > > which hangs the device. > > > > > > This is the log with block protection disabled: > > > [ 0.495831] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: there is not valid maps for > > > state default > > > [ 0.504995] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xc2, Chip ID: 0xf1 > > > [ 0.511526] nand: Macronix MX30LF1G18AC > > > [ 0.515586] nand: 128 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: > > > 2048, OOB size: 64 > > > [ 0.523516] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: detected 128MiB total, > > > 128KiB blocks, 2KiB pages, 16B OOB, 8-bit, BCH-4 > > > [ 0.535912] Bad block table found at page 65472, version 0x01 > > > [ 0.544268] Bad block table found at page 65408, version 0x01 > > > [ 0.954329] 9 fixed-partitions partitions found on MTD device brcmnand.0 > > > ... > > > > > > This is the log with block protection enabled: > > > [ 0.495095] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: there is not valid maps for > > > state default > > > [ 0.504249] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xc2, Chip ID: 0xf1 > > > [ 0.510772] nand: Macronix MX30LF1G18AC > > > [ 0.514874] nand: 128 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: > > > 2048, OOB size: 64 > > > [ 0.522780] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: detected 128MiB total, > > > 128KiB blocks, 2KiB pages, 16B OOB, 8-bit, BCH-4 > > > [ 0.539687] Bad block table not found for chip 0 > > > [ 0.550153] Bad block table not found for chip 0 > > > [ 0.555069] Scanning device for bad blocks > > > [ 0.601213] CPU 1 Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual > > > address 10277f00, epc == 8039ce70, ra == 8016ad50 > > > *** Device hangs *** > > > > > > Enabling macronix_nand_block_protection_support() makes the device > > > unable to detect the bad block table and hangs it when trying to scan > > > for bad blocks. > > > > Please trace nand_macronix.c and look: > > - are the get_features and set_features really supported by the > > controller driver? > > This is what I could find by debugging: > [ 0.494993] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: there is not valid maps for > state default > [ 0.505375] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xc2, Chip ID: 0xf1 > [ 0.512077] nand: Macronix MX30LF1G18AC > [ 0.515994] nand: 128 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: > 2048, OOB size: 64 > [ 0.523928] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: detected 128MiB total, > 128KiB blocks, 2KiB pages, 16B OOB, 8-bit, BCH-4 > [ 0.534415] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: ll_op cmd 0xa00ee > [ 0.539988] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: ll_op cmd 0x600a0 > [ 0.545659] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: ll_op cmd 0x10000 > [ 0.551214] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: NAND_CMD_GET_FEATURES = 0x00 > [ 0.557843] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: ll_op cmd 0x10000 > [ 0.563475] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: NAND_CMD_GET_FEATURES = 0x00 > [ 0.569998] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: ll_op cmd 0x10000 > [ 0.575653] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: NAND_CMD_GET_FEATURES = 0x00 > [ 0.582246] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: ll_op cmd 0x80010000 > [ 0.588067] bcm6368_nand 10000200.nand: NAND_CMD_GET_FEATURES = 0x00 > [ 0.594657] nand: nand_get_features: addr=a0 subfeature_param=[00 > 00 00 00] -> 0 > [ 0.602341] macronix_nand_block_protection_support: > ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_MXIC_PROTECTION=0 > [ 0.610548] macronix_nand_block_protection_support: != > MXIC_BLOCK_PROTECTION_ALL_LOCK > [ 0.624760] Bad block table not found for chip 0 > [ 0.635542] Bad block table not found for chip 0 > [ 0.640270] Scanning device for bad blocks > > I don't know how to tell if get_features / set_features is really supported... Looks like your driver does not support exec_op but the core provides a get/set_feature implementation. > > > - what is the state of the locking configuration in the chip when you > > boot? > > Unlocked, I guess... > How can I check that? It's in your dump, the chip returns 0, meaning it's all unlocked, apparently. > > - is there anything that locks the device by calling mxic_nand_lock() ? So nobody locks the device I guess? Did you add traces there? > > - finding no bbt is one thing, hanging is another, where is it hanging > > exactly? (offset in nand/ and line in the code) > > I've got no idea... You can use ftrace or just add printks a bit everywhere and try to get closer and closer. I looked at the patch, I don't see anything strange. Besides, I have a close enough datasheet and I don't see what could confuse the device. Are you really sure this patch is the problem? Is the WP pin wired on your design? Thanks, Miquèl
