Hi Álvaro, noltari@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 24 Mar 2023 18:04:38 +0100: > Hi Miquèl, > > 2023-03-24 15:36 GMT+01:00, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > 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? > > Could it be that the NAND is stuck expecting a read 0x00 command which > isn’t sent after getting the features? I have no idea, please try that, you can manually generate a READ0 by hacking an existing read helper. > > 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? > > Yes, this was just to prove that the HW I’m using has get/set features support. > I’m using OpenWrt, so it’s linux v5.15 driver. Ok, thanks for the confirmation. > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > - 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. > > Yes, I think that this is a side effect (maybe a different bug somewhere else). Could be worth checking. > > > > >> 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? > > Maybe it has a GPIO controlling that, but I don’t have that info… I mean, on the board, is the chip connected to some kind of pull-up/down resistor? Because it may change its behavior. Regarding your issue, I see there is a problem, but I don't get why. The current proposal is not satisfying, I cannot pick this up. We need feedback from Macronix :-) Thanks, Miquèl
