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

[IKEGAMI Tokunori <ikegami@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you so much for your reviewing.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boris Brezillon [mailto:boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 7:16 PM
> To: IKEGAMI Tokunori
> Cc: boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Hauke Mehrtens;
> stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Joakim Tjernlund; PACKHAM Chris;
> linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Koen Vandeputte; Fabio Bettoni
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/11] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Change
> do_write_oneword() to use chip_good()
> 
> 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".

Yes I will do fix as this.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> Anyway, this is the sort of clarification I'd like to have.

I am thinking to update the commit message as below.

    mtd: cfi_cmdset_0002: Use chip_good() to retry in do_write_oneword()

    As reported by the OpenWRT team, write requests sometimes fail on some
    platforms.
    Currently to check the state chip_ready() is used correctly as described by
    the flash memory S29GL256P11TFI01 datasheet.
    Also chip_good() is used to check if the write is succeeded and it was
    implemented by the commit fb4a90bfcd6d8 ("[MTD] CFI-0002 - Improve error
    checking").
    But actually the write failure is caused on some platforms and also it can
    be fixed by using chip_good() to check the state and retry instead.
    It is depended on the actual flash chip behavior so the root cause is
    unknown.

If any comment please let me know.

> 
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tokunori Ikegami <ikegami@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Koen Vandeputte <koen.vandeputte@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Fabio Bettoni <fbettoni@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Has the patch really gone through all those people? SoB is used when you
> apply a patch in your tree or when you're the original author.

I have just checked the OpenWRT git log again and it looks that it was originally
implemented by Felix Fietkau <nbd@xxxxxxxxxxx> by the patch below so I will update the Signed-off-by tag as so.
  <https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=commitdiff;h=2530640f07cd2b3b14fe9ec03fa63a586452cc5f>

> 
> > Co-Developed-by: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Co-Developed-by: Koen Vandeputte <koen.vandeputte@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Co-Developed-by: Fabio Bettoni <fbettoni@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Not sure we want to add new undocumented tags, but you can mention
> that all those people helped you find/debug the issue. They can also
> add their Reviewed-by/Tested-by if they like.

Yes so I am thinking to change as below.

    Signed-off-by: Tokunori Ikegami <ikegami@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Felix Fietkau <nbd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
    Tested-by: Fabio Bettoni <fbettoni@xxxxxxxxx>
    Reported-by: Fabio Bettoni <fbettoni@xxxxxxxxx>
    Cc: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Cc: Koen Vandeputte <koen.vandeputte@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

If any problem let me know.

By the way the patch has been tested by Fabio-san then there was still the failure behavior.
And it was not followed the original patch changes correctly.
So I will update the patch change a little by the next version v4 patch.
  Note: It has been retested by the Fabio-san as okay.

> 
> > Reported-by: Fabio Bettoni <fbettoni@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---
> > Changes since v2:
> > - Just update the commit message for the comment.
> >
> > Changes since v1:
> > - Just update the commit message.
> >
> > Background:
> > This is required for OpenWrt Project to result the flash write issue as
> > below patche.
> >
> <https://git.openwrt.org/?p=openwrt/openwrt.git;a=commitdiff;h=ddc11c3
> 932c7b7b7df7d5fbd48f207e77619eaa7>
> >
> > Also the original patch in OpenWRT is below.
> >
> <https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/blob/v18.06.0/target/linux/ar71xx/
> patches-4.9/403-mtd_fix_cfi_cmdset_0002_status_check.patch>
> >
> > The reason to use chip_good() is that just actually fix the issue.
> > And also in the past I had fixed the erase function also as same way by
> the
> > patch below.
> >   <https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/922656/>
> >     Note: The reason for the patch for erase is same.
> >
> > In my understanding the chip_ready() is just checked the value twice from
> > flash.
> > So I think that sometimes incorrect value is read twice and it is depended
> > on the flash device behavior but not sure..
> >
> > So change to use chip_good() instead of chip_ready().
> >
> >  drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
> b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
> > index 72428b6bfc47..251c9e1675bd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0002.c
> > @@ -1627,31 +1627,37 @@ static int __xipram do_write_oneword(struct
> map_info *map, struct flchip *chip,
> >  			continue;
> >  		}
> >
> > -		if (time_after(jiffies, timeo) && !chip_ready(map, adr)){
> > +		if (chip_good(map, adr, datum))
> > +			break;
> > +
> > +		if (time_after(jiffies, timeo)){
> >  			xip_enable(map, chip, adr);
> >  			printk(KERN_WARNING "MTD %s(): software
> timeout\n", __func__);
> >  			xip_disable(map, chip, adr);
> > +			ret = -EIO;
> >  			break;
> >  		}
> >
> > -		if (chip_ready(map, adr))
> > -			break;
> > -
> >  		/* Latency issues. Drop the lock, wait a while and retry
> */
> >  		UDELAY(map, chip, adr, 1);
> >  	}
> > +
> >  	/* Did we succeed? */
> > -	if (!chip_good(map, adr, datum)) {
> > +	if (ret) {
> >  		/* reset on all failures. */
> >  		map_write(map, CMD(0xF0), chip->start);
> >  		/* FIXME - should have reset delay before continuing */
> >
> > -		if (++retry_cnt <= MAX_RETRIES)
> > +		if (++retry_cnt <= MAX_RETRIES) {
> > +			ret = 0;
> >  			goto retry;
> > +		}
> >
> >  		ret = -EIO;
> >  	}
> > +
> >  	xip_enable(map, chip, adr);
> > +
> 
> Not a big deal, but I'd prefer to not have coding style changes mixed
> with functional changes (in other words, you can drop the addition of
> blanks lines around xip_enable()).

Yes I will do fix this.

Regards,
Ikegami

> 
> >   op_done:
> >  	if (mode == FL_OTP_WRITE)
> >  		otp_exit(map, chip, adr, map_bankwidth(map));


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