Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Change do_write_oneword() to use chip_good()

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Joakim,

On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 13:22:19 +0000
Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 13:52 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 12:03:04 +0000
> > Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 11:15 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 01:32:09 +0900
> > > > Tokunori Ikegami <ikegami@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >   
> > > > > In OpenWrt Project the flash write error caused on some products.  
> > > > 
> > > > It's okay to mention that the issue was discovered by the OpenWRT team,
> > > > but I'd rephrase it differently.
> > > > 
> > > > "As reported by the OpenWRT team, write requests sometimes fail on some
> > > > platforms".
> > > >   
> > > > > Also the issue can be fixed by using chip_good() instead of chip_ready().
> > > > > The chip_ready() just checks the value from flash memory twice.
> > > > > And the chip_good() checks the value with the expected value.
> > > > > Probably the issue can be fixed as checked correctly by the chip_good().
> > > > > So change to use chip_good() instead of chip_ready().  
> > > > 
> > > > Well, that's not really explaining why you think chip_good() should be
> > > > used instead of chip_ready(). So I went on and looked at the
> > > > chip_good(), chip_ready() and do_write_oneword() implementation, and
> > > > also looked at users of do_write_oneword(). It seems this function is
> > > > used to write data to the flash, and apparently the "one bit should
> > > > toggle to reflect a busy state" does not apply when writing things to
> > > > the memory array (it's probably working for other CFI commands, but I
> > > > guess it takes more time to actually change the level of a NOR cell,
> > > > hence the result of 2 identical reads does not mean that the write is
> > > > done).
> > > > 
> > > > Also, it seems that cmdset_0001 is not implementing chip_ready() the
> > > > same way, and I wonder if cmdset_0002 implementation is correct to
> > > > start with. Or maybe I don't get what chip_ready() is for.
> > > >   
> > > The 0001 cmd set is quite different to 0002 and 0001 is the superior one.
> > > If you look at recent 0002 cmd sets they offer an alternative cmd
> > > set to replace the all the "toggle" ones with something that is
> > > same/similar to what 0001 offers.  
> > 
> > Okay. Do you know when chip_ready() (the one that checks if something
> > changes between 2 reads) should be used and when it shouldn't?  
> 
> It is next to impossible to do proper error handling(analysing status) with
> toggle method, especially when you have interleaved chips.

It's probably me who does not understand how CFI works, but it sounds
weird to have chip_ready() called on something that's not a status
register (this is my understanding of what do_write_oneword() does).

> Try with erase suspend when something goes wrong and you want
> to address that properly.

I trust you when you say it does not work when using chip_ready(), but
I'd like to understand why. Well, first I'd like to understand what
chip_ready() is supposed to do, and on which kind of access/address it's
supposed to be used. As you already noticed I don't know a lot about
CFI, and that's why it's important to me to have things clearly
explained in the commit message.

> Best is to add support for the extended 0002 cmd set and use that
> whenever possible.

Okay, does that mean we should replace all chip_ready() calls by
chip_good() ones until support for ext 0002 cmdset is added?
To be honest, I have a hard time understanding what chip_ready() is
supposed to tell us. To me it's something that should return 1 when the
chip is ready to accept new requests, but I don't see how comparing
values returned by 2 successive reads can provide me this information.
Can you maybe point me to the CFI 0002 cmdset spec describing that?

Thanks,

Boris

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/