On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:38:05 +0530
Archit Taneja <architt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 01/21/2016 06:06 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 16:30:48 +0530
> > Archit Taneja <architt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 01/21/2016 03:43 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:22:39 +0530
> >>> Archit Taneja <architt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 01/21/2016 02:21 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Archit,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:43:18 +0530
> >>>>> Archit Taneja <architt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The Qualcomm NAND controller is found in SoCs like IPQ806x, MSM7xx,
> >>>>>> MDM9x15 series.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It exists as a sub block inside the IPs EBI2 (External Bus Interface 2)
> >>>>>> and QPIC (Qualcomm Parallel Interface Controller). These IPs provide a
> >>>>>> broader interface for external slow peripheral devices such as LCD and
> >>>>>> NAND/NOR flash memory or SRAM like interfaces.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We add support for the NAND controller found within EBI2. For the SoCs
> >>>>>> of our interest, we only use the NAND controller within EBI2. Therefore,
> >>>>>> it's safe for us to assume that the NAND controller is a standalone block
> >>>>>> within the SoC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The controller supports 512B, 2kB, 4kB and 8kB page 8-bit and 16-bit NAND
> >>>>>> flash devices. It contains a HW ECC block that supports BCH ECC (4, 8 and
> >>>>>> 16 bit correction/step) and RS ECC(4 bit correction/step) that covers main
> >>>>>> and spare data. The controller contains an internal 512 byte page buffer
> >>>>>> to which we read/write via DMA. The EBI2 type NAND controller uses ADM DMA
> >>>>>> for register read/write and data transfers. The controller performs page
> >>>>>> reads and writes at a codeword/step level of 512 bytes. It can support up
> >>>>>> to 2 external chips of different configurations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The driver prepares register read and write configuration descriptors for
> >>>>>> each codeword, followed by data descriptors to read or write data from the
> >>>>>> controller's internal buffer. It uses a single ADM DMA channel that we get
> >>>>>> via dmaengine API. The controller requires 2 ADM CRCIs for command and
> >>>>>> data flow control. These are passed via DT.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The ecc layout used by the controller is syndrome like, but we can't use
> >>>>>> the standard syndrome ecc ops because of several reasons. First, the amount
> >>>>>> of data bytes covered by ecc isn't same in each step. Second, writing to
> >>>>>> free oob space requires us writing to the entire step in which the oob
> >>>>>> lies. This forces us to create our own ecc ops.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One more difference is how the controller accesses the bad block marker.
> >>>>>> The controller ignores reading the marker when ECC is enabled. ECC needs
> >>>>>> to be explicity disabled to read or write to the bad block marker. The
> >>>>>> nand_bbt helpers library hence can't access BBMs for the controller.
> >>>>>> For now, we skip the creation of BBT and populate chip->block_bad and
> >>>>>> chip->block_markbad helpers instead.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Andy Gross <agross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Archit Taneja <architt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, I noticed one more thing in your "bitflips in erased pages"
> >>>>> handling. Once this is addressed (or explained) you can add my
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks! I've given an explanation below.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> v7:
> >>>>>> - Incorporated missing/new comments by Boris
> >>>>>> - Cleaned up some strict checkpatch warnings
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> v6:
> >>>>>> - Fix up erased page parsing. Use nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk to
> >>>>>> return corrected bitflips in an erased page.
> >>>>>> - Fix whitespace issues
> >>>>>> - Update compatible tring to something more specific
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> v5:
> >>>>>> - split chip/controller structs
> >>>>>> - simplify layout by considering reserved bytes as part of ECC
> >>>>>> - create ecc layouts automatically
> >>>>>> - implement block_bad and block_markbad chip ops instead of
> >>>>>> - read_oob_raw/write_oob_raw ecc ops to access BBMs.
> >>>>>> - Add NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN flag until we get badblockbits support.
> >>>>>> - misc clean ups
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> v4:
> >>>>>> - Shrink submit_descs
> >>>>>> - add desc list node at the end of dma_prep_desc
> >>>>>> - Endianness and warning fixes
> >>>>>> - Add Stephen's Signed-off since he provided a patch to fix
> >>>>>> endianness problems
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> v3:
> >>>>>> - Refactor dma functions for maximum reuse
> >>>>>> - Use dma_slave_confing on stack
> >>>>>> - optimize and clean upempty_page_fixup using memchr_inv
> >>>>>> - ensure portability with dma register reads using le32_* funcs
> >>>>>> - use NAND_USE_BOUNCE_BUFFER instead of doing it ourselves
> >>>>>> - fix handling of return values of dmaengine funcs
> >>>>>> - constify wherever possible
> >>>>>> - Remove dependency on ADM DMA in Kconfig
> >>>>>> - Misc fixes and clean ups
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> v2:
> >>>>>> - Use new BBT flag that allows us to read BBM in raw mode
> >>>>>> - reduce memcpy-s in the driver
> >>>>>> - some refactor and clean ups because of above changes
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig | 7 +
> >>>>>> drivers/mtd/nand/Makefile | 1 +
> >>>>>> drivers/mtd/nand/qcom_nandc.c | 2024 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>> 3 files changed, 2032 insertions(+)
> >>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/mtd/nand/qcom_nandc.c
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/qcom_nandc.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/qcom_nandc.c
> >>>>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>>>> index 0000000..269d388
> >>>>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/qcom_nandc.c
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +/*
> >>>>>> + * when using BCH ECC, the HW flags an error in NAND_FLASH_STATUS if it read
> >>>>>> + * an erased CW, and reports an erased CW in NAND_ERASED_CW_DETECT_STATUS.
> >>>>>> + *
> >>>>>> + * when using RS ECC, the HW reports the same erros when reading an erased CW,
> >>>>>> + * but it notifies that it is an erased CW by placing special characters at
> >>>>>> + * certain offsets in the buffer.
> >>>>>> + *
> >>>>>> + * verify if the page is erased or not, and fix up the page for RS ECC by
> >>>>>> + * replacing the special characters with 0xff
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> +static bool empty_page_fixup(struct qcom_nand_host *host, u8 *data_buf)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + struct nand_chip *chip = &host->chip;
> >>>>>> + struct qcom_nand_controller *nandc = get_qcom_nand_controller(chip);
> >>>>>> + struct nand_ecc_ctrl *ecc = &chip->ecc;
> >>>>>> + struct read_stats *buf;
> >>>>>> + int i;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + buf = (struct read_stats *)nandc->reg_read_buf;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < ecc->steps; i++, buf++) {
> >>>>>> + u32 flash, erased_cw;
> >>>>>> + u8 empty1, empty2;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + flash = le32_to_cpu(buf->flash);
> >>>>>> + erased_cw = le32_to_cpu(buf->erased_cw);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>> + * an erased page flags an error in NAND_FLASH_STATUS, if there
> >>>>>> + * isn't any error, bail out early and report a non-erased
> >>>>>> + * page
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> + if (!(flash & FS_OP_ERR))
> >>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>> + * if BCH is enabled, HW will take care of detecting erased
> >>>>>> + * pages
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> + if (host->bch_enabled) {
> >>>>>> + /* bail out if we didn't detect an erased CW */
> >>>>>> + if ((erased_cw & ERASED_CW) != ERASED_CW)
> >>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>> + } else {
> >>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>> + * if RS ECC is enabled, check if the CW is erased by
> >>>>>> + * looking for 0x54s at offsets 3 and 175
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> + empty1 = data_buf[3 + i * host->cw_data];
> >>>>>> + empty2 = data_buf[175 + i * host->cw_data];
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + /* bail out if the CW isn't erased */
> >>>>>> + if (!(empty1 == 0x54 && empty2 == 0xff) &&
> >>>>>> + !(empty1 == 0xff && empty2 == 0x54))
> >>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + if (i < ecc->steps)
> >>>>>> + return false;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + if (!host->bch_enabled) {
> >>>>>> + /*
> >>>>>> + * fix up the buffer by replacing the magic offsets with
> >>>>>> + * 0xff
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < ecc->steps; i++) {
> >>>>>> + data_buf[3 + i * host->cw_data] = 0xff;
> >>>>>> + data_buf[175 + i * host->cw_data] = 0xff;
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + return true;
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +/*
> >>>>>> + * reads back status registers set by the controller to notify page read
> >>>>>> + * errors. this is equivalent to what 'ecc->correct()' would do.
> >>>>>> + */
> >>>>>> +static int parse_read_errors(struct qcom_nand_host *host, u8 *data_buf,
> >>>>>> + u8 *oob_buf, bool erased_page)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + struct nand_chip *chip = &host->chip;
> >>>>>> + struct qcom_nand_controller *nandc = get_qcom_nand_controller(chip);
> >>>>>> + struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip);
> >>>>>> + struct nand_ecc_ctrl *ecc = &chip->ecc;
> >>>>>> + unsigned int max_bitflips = 0;
> >>>>>> + struct read_stats *buf;
> >>>>>> + int i;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + buf = (struct read_stats *)nandc->reg_read_buf;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < ecc->steps; i++, buf++) {
> >>>>>> + u32 flash, buffer;
> >>>>>> + int data_len, oob_len;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + if (i == (ecc->steps - 1)) {
> >>>>>> + data_len = ecc->size - ((ecc->steps - 1) << 2);
> >>>>>> + oob_len = ecc->steps << 2;
> >>>>>> + } else {
> >>>>>> + data_len = host->cw_data;
> >>>>>> + oob_len = 0;
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + flash = le32_to_cpu(buf->flash);
> >>>>>> + buffer = le32_to_cpu(buf->buffer);
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + if (flash & (FS_OP_ERR | FS_MPU_ERR)) {
> >>>>>> + if (erased_page) {
> >>>>>> + int ret, ecclen, extraooblen;
> >>>>>> + void *eccbuf;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + eccbuf = oob_buf ? oob_buf + oob_len : NULL;
> >>>>>> + ecclen = oob_buf ? host->ecc_bytes_hw : 0;
> >>>>>> + extraooblen = oob_buf ? oob_len : 0;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + ret = nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(data_buf,
> >>>>>> + data_len, eccbuf, ecclen, oob_buf,
> >>>>>> + extraooblen, ecc->strength);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IIUC, the erased_page info is returned by empty_page_fixup() and is
> >>>>> only set if the page is detected as empty (filled with ff).
> >>>>> If that's the case, then you don't have to use
> >>>>> nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() to check it again...
> >>>>
> >>>> empty_page_fixup now doesn't parse the entire page for 0xffs, it just
> >>>> checks if the correct flags have been raised by the controller hardware,
> >>>> and replaces the 'special offsets' with 0xffs instead of 0x54s.
> >>>
> >>> But didn't you say that those pattern assignment were guaranteeing that
> >>> the tested chunk is empty? Or am I missing something else?
> >>
> >> No, the controller reports 0x54s at special offsets, but we still need
> >> to parse the entire buffer for 0xffs because the flash user might have
> >> intentionally placed 0x54 in that offsets.
> >>
> >> The previous revisions of the patchset first the changed the
> >> 0x54s to 0xffs at the special offsets, and then checked if the
> >> entire page for 0xffs. If any single byte wasn't 0xff, it reported it
> >> as not empty and replaced the offsets back with 0x54s. For the newer
> >> IPs, we don't need to read the entirepage, we only need to read a
> >> bitfield per chunk to be sure.
> >
> > Oh, I thought the FS_OP_ERR + 0X54 pattern @3 and 175 were enough to
> > detect an empty page, but I must have misunderstood your previous
> > explanations. Anyway, adding an extra nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk()
> > here shouldn't hurt, so I'm fine with that one.
>
> Yeah, we need to check manually too, sadly. Although, since we are sure
> that it is always 0xffs, I can put the faster memchr_inv func to check
> if the page is erased.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From what I understood, we still need to parse the chunks to try to
> >>>> fix 'ecc->strength' number of bitflips.
> >>>
> >>> No, if the controller tests and guarantees that a specific page is empty
> >>> (filled with ff), then we should trust it.
> >>> I suggested to use nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() in one of my
> >>> previous review because I thought the 0x54 detection scheme was not
> >>> sufficient to detect empty pages, but you said it was, so I trust
> >>> you ;). And if it's really safe, then we don't need to check again with
> >>> nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() here.
> >>
> >> Okay. I thought that when NAND controllers report an empty page, there
> >> can still be bitflips in them once we read it, and that we need to
> >> use nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk to set those bits back to 1.
> >
> > It's really dependent on your NAND controller, so I can't answer that
> > question for your specific case, but usually NAND controller are able
> > to detect pages filled with 0xff, but as soon as you have a single
> > bitflip, the control is passed to the ECC engine which tries to correct
> > errors (and fails to do it in most cases).
>
> Yes, that seems to be the case for this controller.
>
> > Some ECC engines are smarter and you can pass them an 'acceptable'
> > number of bitflips that is used by the "erased page detection" logic.
>
> I haven't seen such an 'acceptable' bitfield for this controller.
>
> > And other ECC engines take care of xoring the ECC bytes so that it
> > generates 0xff bytes for empty pages (this solution is the ideal one,
> > since you're guaranteed to fix bitflips even for the empty/erased page
> > case).
>
> Okay, I doubt that the controller does that here, but I'll go through
> the docs and verify. Thanks for the explanation.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> + if (ret < 0) {
> >>>>>> + mtd->ecc_stats.failed++;
> >>>>>> + } else {
> >>>>>> + mtd->ecc_stats.corrected += ret;
> >>>>>> + max_bitflips =
> >>>>>> + max_t(unsigned int, max_bitflips, ret);
> >>>>>> + }
> >>>>>> + } else {
> >>>>>> + if (buffer & BS_UNCORRECTABLE_BIT) {
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ... here is where you should check if what was detected as
> >>>>> uncorrectable errors is not in fact some bitflips in an erased page.
> >>>>
> >>>> This path will never hit for a page reported as erased by the HW. The
> >>>> 'else' branch happens only for pages that were reported as 'not erased'
> >>>> by empty page fixup.
> >>>>
> >>>> In other words, the BS_UNCORRECTABLE_BIT register bitfield is never
> >>>> checked for an erased page. In some experiments I performed, I noticed
> >>>> that this bitfield was almost always set for an erased page. There is
> >>>> not point in even checking this field for an erased page.
> >>>
> >>> No, my point was that, if you have one or several bitflips in an erased
> >>> page (which can happen), then your NAND controller will first detect
> >>> that it's not an empty page (because you have some bits set to zero),
> >>> and then try to correct the errors with its ECC engine (which will
> >>> probably fail, unless your controller generate 0xff ECC bytes for an
> >>> empty page). nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() has been created exactly for
> >>> this use case: manually check if a page is 'almost' empty when the ECC
> >>> engine fails to correct errors.
> >>
> >> Okay. I think I understand now :). I thought nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk
> >> had to be used for pages that were reported as erased, but it is used
> >> for pages that aren't detected as erased because of some bitflips, and
> >> we just make sure if it is erased or not.
> >>
> >> Should the pseudo code look something like this?
> >>
> >> /* ecc->read_page */
> >> int qcom_nand_read_page(...)
> >> {
> >> /* read the page */
> >> ...
> >>
> >> erased = empty_page_fixup();
> >> /* we make sure above that the entire page is 0xffs or not */
> >>
> >> return parse_read_errors(host, erased);
> >> }
> >>
> >> int parse_read_errors(host, erased)
> >> {
> >> for each chunk {
> >> if (!erased) {
> >> if (uncorrectable errors) {
> >> ret = nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk();
> >> if (ret < 0) {
> >> /* not an erased page, report */
> >> stats.failed++
> >> } else {
> >> /* 'almost' empty page which
> >> HW couldn't detect as erased */
> >> stats.corrected += ret;
> >> }
> >> } else {
> >> stats.corrected += stat;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> }
> >> }
> >
> > Yep, exactly.
>
> Thanks. I'll fix this and test it out.
If you want to check that your "bitflips in erased pages" handling
is correct, you can try this tool to artificially flip some bits
[1].
# flash_erase /dev/mtdX Y 1
# nandflipbits /dev/mtdX 2@<Y>:3@<Y+1>
Best Regards,
Boris
[1]http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2014-November/056634.html
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
