Hi Am Freitag, 10. Januar 2020, 20:05:20 CET schrieb Masahiro Yamada: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 1:47 AM Tim Sander <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Masahiro Yamada > > > > Sorry for the large delay. I have seen the patches at > > https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2019-December/092852.html > > Seem to resolve the question about the spare_area_skip_bytes register. > > > > I have now set the register to 2 which seems to be the right choice on an > > Intel SocFPGA. But still i am out of luck trying to boot 5.4.5-rt3 or > > 5.5-rc5. I get the following messages during bootup booting: > > [ 1.825590] denali-nand-dt ff900000.nand: timeout while waiting for irq > > 0x1000 [ 1.832936] denali-nand-dt: probe of ff900000.nand failed with > > error -5 > > > > But the commit c19e31d0a32dd 2017-06-13 22:45:38 predates the 4.19 kernel > > release (Mon Oct 22 07:37:37 2018). So it seems there is not an obvious > > commit which is causing the problem. Looking at the changes it might be > > that the timing calculations in the driver changed which might also lead > > to a similar error. > > > > I am booting via NFS the bootloader is placed in NOR flash. The > > corresponding> > > nand dts entry is updated to the new format and looks like this: > > nand@ff900000 { > > > > #address-cells = <0x1>; > > #size-cells = <0x0>; > > compatible = "altr,socfpga-denali-nand"; > > reg = <0xff900000 0x100000 0xffb80000 0x10000>; > > reg-names = "nand_data", "denali_reg"; > > interrupts = <0x0 0x90 0x4>; > > clocks = <0x2d 0x1e 0x2e>; > > clock-names = "nand", "nand_x", "ecc"; > > resets = <0x6 0x24>; > > status = "okay"; > > nand@0 { > > > > reg = <0x0>; > > #address-cells = <0x1>; > > #size-cells = <0x1>; > > partition@0 { > > > > label = "work"; > > reg = <0x0 0x10000000>; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > }; > > > > The last kernel i am able to boot is 4.19.10. I have tried booting: > > 5.1.21, 5.2.9, 5.3-rc8, 5.4.5-rt3 and 5.5-rc5. They all failed. > > Unfortunately the range is quite large for bisecting the problem. It also > > occurred to me that all the platforms with Intel Cyclone V in mainline > > are development boards which boot from SD-card not exhibiting this > > problem on their default boot path. > What will happen if you apply all of these: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-mtd/list/?series=149821 I have applied this patch set but it does not help completely. The timings are wrong. I don't have access to the hardware now but one thing i tested before i left (the HW) was to write the NAND timings from the bootloader into the denali controller after the driver configured the timings in denali_init. After that the driver worked again for me. > on top of the mainline kernel, > and then, hack denali->clk_rate and denali->clk_x_rate as follows? > > > - denali->clk_rate = clk_get_rate(dt->clk); > - denali->clk_x_rate = clk_get_rate(dt->clk_x); > + denali->clk_rate = 50000000; > + denali->clk_x_rate = 200000000; > > If it still fails, what about this? > > denali->clk_rate = 0; > denali->clk_x_rate = 0; Will try the above next week. Skimming over the socfpga.dtsi it seems as if on the Intel SocFPGA the OSC1 has a value of 25000000 set in socfpga_cyclone5.dtsi (I am currently not sure about the clock tree with all the plls and i am missing the value of osc2?). Also right now it seems i am to tired to parse denali_setup_data_interface... > > PS: Here is some snippet from an older mail i didn't sent to the list yet > > which might be superseded by now: > > To get into this matter i started reading the "Intel Cyclone V HPS TRM" > > Section 13-20 Preserving Bad Block Markers: > > "You can configure the NAND flash controller to skip over a specified > > number of bytes when it writes the last sector in a page to the spare > > area. This option write the desired offset to the spare_area_skip_bytes > > register in the config group. For example, if the device page size is 2 > > KB, and the device area, set the spare_area_skip_bytes register to 2. > > When the flash controller writes the last sector of the page that > > overlaps with the spare area, it spare_area_skip_bytes must be an even > > number. For example, if the bad block marker is a single byte, set > > spare_area_skip_bytes to 2." > > I did not know this documentation. > > It says "For example" (twice), > it sounds uncertain to me, though. > > Anyway, an intel engineer checked the boot ROM code. > SPARE_AREA_SKIP_BYTES=2 is correct, he said. As far as i understand the documentation it must be a multiple of 2. The most nand flashes i know need one byte for bad block marking so 2 seems to be a pretty sane value. The explanation why default value of spare_area_skip_bytes=0 of the boot rom is a little unfortunate is also in the documentation: The fact that the ECC values might spill into the spare area where the bad block marker of the nand is located. Best regards Tim ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/