Hi, Le mer. 2 janv. 2019 à 10:23, Naga Sureshkumar Relli <nagasure@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Miquel Raynal [mailto:miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 2:04 PM > > To: Romain Perier <romain.perier@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Naga Sureshkumar Relli <nagasure@xxxxxxxxxx>; Boris Brezillon > > <bbrezillon@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; peterpandong@xxxxxxxxxx; > > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [LINUX PATCH v12] mtd: rawnand: pl353: Add basic driver for arm pl353 > > smc nand interface > > > > Hi Romain, > > > > Switching Boris address. > > > > Romain Perier <romain.perier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Fri, 21 Dec 2018 > > 10:17:50 +0100: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I have rebased this patch onto 4.19.11. I use it on a Zynq7000-based > > > board with a NAND chip Micron MT29F4G08ABADAH4, since ~2 weeks now. > > > The only problem I have to report is that when I boot with an > > > unchanged driver on my board, I get the following logs: > > > > > > [ 1.988797] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xdc > > > [ 1.995184] nand: Micron MT29F4G08ABADAH4 > > > [ 1.999187] nand: 512 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64 > > > [ 2.402661] nand: timeout while waiting for chip to become ready > > > [ 2.408665] nand: timing mode 5 not acknowledged by the NAND chip > > > [ 2.416251] Bad block table not found for chip 0 > > > [ 2.422278] Bad block table not found for chip 0 > > > [ 2.426903] Scanning device for bad blocks > > > [ 2.431024] Bad eraseblock 0 at 0x000000000000 > > > [ 2.435509] Bad eraseblock 1 at 0x000000020000 > > > [ 2.439978] Bad eraseblock 2 at 0x000000040000 > > > [ 2.444465] Bad eraseblock 3 at 0x000000060000 > > > [ 2.448936] Bad eraseblock 4 at 0x000000080000 > > > [ 2.453423] Bad eraseblock 5 at 0x0000000a0000 > > > [ 2.457893] Bad eraseblock 6 at 0x0000000c0000 > > > [ 2.462354] Bad eraseblock 7 at 0x0000000e0000 > > > [ 2.466841] Bad eraseblock 8 at 0x000000100000 > > > [ 2.471304] Bad eraseblock 9 at 0x000000120000 > > > [ 2.475793] Bad eraseblock 10 at 0x000000140000 > > > [ 2.480349] Bad eraseblock 11 at 0x000000160000 > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > After investigation, it seems that during the nand_scan phase, the > > > NAND subsystem tests different timing modes on the NAND chip (mode 0 > > > seems to be apply during reset, and then it tries to detect the best > > > mode supported by the NAND chip). Only the mode 0 works here, trying > > > the use the mode 5 resuls in an error (as you can see in the log) and > > > a bad BBT detection. Both modes are supported by the NAND chip. In > > > order to fix this, I had to put the nfc timing into the device node of the nfc, inside the DT > > (that's not a real fix, ihmo). > > > > Thanks for testing! Indeed, the ->setup_data_interface() callback should be fixed. > Ok, let me check. > Meanwhile, can you share the timings that you put inside the DT? Sure, I have simply added an array in the DT: pl353,nand-controller-timings=<4 4 2 2 1 1 2>; Then, I pass this array directly to pl353_smc_set_cycles(). (I got these value from the hdf originally, then I ported the DT to a mainline format, written by hand). Hope this helps, Regards, Romain > > > > > Except this, everything is working as expected. Everything is stable > > > with correct performances. > > > > > > If I can provide more informations, feel free to ask. > > > > [...] > > > > > > +static int pl353_setup_data_interface(struct mtd_info *mtd, int csline, > > > > + const struct nand_data_interface *conf) { > > > > + struct nand_chip *chip = mtd_to_nand(mtd); > > > > + struct pl353_nand_controller *xnfc = > > > > + container_of(chip, struct pl353_nand_controller, chip); > > > > + const struct nand_sdr_timings *sdr; > > > > + u32 timings[7], mckperiodps; > > > > + > > > > + if (csline == NAND_DATA_IFACE_CHECK_ONLY) > > > > + return 0; > > > > + > > > > + sdr = nand_get_sdr_timings(conf); > > > > + if (IS_ERR(sdr)) > > > > + return PTR_ERR(sdr); > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * SDR timings are given in pico-seconds while NFC timings must be > > > > + * expressed in NAND controller clock cycles. > > > > + */ > > > > + mckperiodps = NSEC_PER_SEC / clk_get_rate(xnfc->mclk); > > > > + mckperiodps *= 1000; > > > > + if (sdr->tRC_min <= 20000) > > > > + /* > > > > + * PL353 SMC needs one extra read cycle in SDR Mode 5 > > > > + * This is not written anywhere in the datasheet but > > > > + * the results observed during testing. > > > > + */ > > > > + timings[0] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tRC_min, mckperiodps) + 1; > > > > + else > > > > + timings[0] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tRC_min, mckperiodps); > > > > + > > > > + timings[1] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tWC_min, mckperiodps); > > > > + /* > > > > + * For all SDR modes, PL353 SMC needs tREA max value as 1, > > > > + * Results observed during testing. > > > > + */ > > > > + timings[2] = PL353_TREA_MAX_VALUE; > > > > + timings[3] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tWP_min, mckperiodps); > > > > + timings[4] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tCLR_min, mckperiodps); > > > > + timings[5] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tAR_min, mckperiodps); > > > > + timings[6] = DIV_ROUND_UP(sdr->tRR_min, mckperiodps); > > > > + pl353_smc_set_cycles(timings); > > > > + > > > > + return 0; > > > > +} > > > > > > If I hack this function in order to limit the timings only to mode 0, > > > everything works. Otherwise it hangs when it tries to apply mode 5. > > > > > > > Maybe Naga is not using a chip compatible with mode 5 and did not ran into this issue? > No, these are the chips I am using, S34ML01G1 and MT29F2G16ABAEAWP. > These are up to mode 5 compatible. > > Thanks, > Naga Sureshkumar Relli > > > > > > Thanks, > > Miquèl ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/