Hi Álvaro, + YouChing and Jaime from Macronix TLDR for them: there is a misbehavior since Mason added block protection support. Just checking if the blocks are protected seems to misconfigure the chip entirely, see below. Any hints? noltari@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 15:15:47 +0100: > Hi Miquèl, > > 2023-03-24 14:45 GMT+01:00, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > 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. > > According to Florian, low level should be supported on brcmnand > controllers >= 4.0 > Also: > https://github.com/nomis/bcm963xx_4.12L.06B_consumer/blob/e2f23ddbb20bf75689372b6e6a5a0dc613f6e313/shared/opensource/include/bcm963xx/63268_map_part.h#L1597 Just to be sure, you're using a mainline controller driver, not this one? > > > >> > >> > - 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. > > Well, I can read/write the device if block protection isn’t disabled, > so I guess we can confirm it’s unlocked… > > > > >> > - is there anything that locks the device by calling mxic_nand_lock() ? > > > > So nobody locks the device I guess? Did you add traces there? > > It doesn’t get to the point that it enabled the lock/unlock functions > since it fails when checking if feature is 0x38, so there’s no point > in adding those traces… Right, it returns before setting these I guess. > > > > >> > - 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 think that after trying to get the feature it just start reading > nonsense from the NAND and at some point it hangs due to that garbage… It should refuse to mount the device somehow, but in no case the kernel should hang. > Is it posible that the NAND starts behaving like this after getting > the feature due to some specific config of my device? > > > > > 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? > > There’s no WP pin in brcmnand controllers < 7.0 What about the chip? Thanks, Miquèl
