Hello Yegor, On 04/07/2022 14:28, Yegor Yefremov wrote: > Hi Roger, > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:22 PM Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Yegor, >> >> On 29/06/2022 17:23, Yegor Yefremov wrote: >>> Hi Roger, >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 3:44 PM Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Yegor, >>>> >>>> On 29/06/2022 14:33, Roger Quadros wrote: >>>>> Hi Yegor, >>>>> >>>>> On 28/06/2022 14:59, Yegor Yefremov wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 1:57 PM Yegor Yefremov >>>>>> <yegorslists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Roger, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 1:44 PM Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Yegor, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 28/06/2022 13:48, Yegor Yefremov wrote: >>>>>>>>> Since linux 5.17 I get the following issue when doing ubiformat: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> # ubiformat -y /dev/mtd5 >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: mtd5 (nand), size 265945088 bytes (253.6 MiB), 2029 >>>>>>>>> eraseblocks of 131072 bytes (128.0 KiB), min. I/O size 2048 bytes >>>>>>>>> libscan: scanning eraseblock 1097 -- 54 % complete eth1 timed out to bring up >>>>>>>>> libscan: scanning eraseblock 2028 -- 100 % complete >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: 2001 eraseblocks have valid erase counter, mean value is 9 >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: 2 eraseblocks are supposedly empty >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: 26 bad eraseblocks found, numbers: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, >>>>>>>>> 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, >>>>>>>>> 31, 32 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm guessing these bad blocks recently added due to the offending patch? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eras[ 33.644323] nand: nand_erase_nand: >>>>>>>>> attempt to erase a bad block at page 0x00000d40 >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 28[ 33.658809] nand: >>>>>>>>> nand_erase_nand: attempt to erase a bad block at page 0x00000d80 >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 29 -- 1 % [ 33.674531] nand: >>>>>>>>> nand_erase_nand: attempt to erase a bad block at page 0x00000dc0 >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 30 -- 1 % complete [ 33.684508] >>>>>>>>> nand: nand_erase_nand: attempt to erase a bad block at page 0x00000e00 >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 34 -- 1 % complete libmtd: error!: >>>>>>>>> MEMERASE64 ioctl failed for eraseblock 34 (mtd5) >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: error!: failed to erase eraseblock 34 >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error) >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: marking block 34 bad >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 35 -- 1 % complete libmtd: error!: >>>>>>>>> MEMERASE64 ioctl failed for eraseblock 35 (mtd5) >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: error!: failed to erase eraseblock 35 >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error) >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: marking block 35 bad >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 36 -- 1 % complete libmtd: error!: >>>>>>>>> MEMERASE64 ioctl failed for eraseblock 36 (mtd5) >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: error!: failed to erase eraseblock 36 >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error) >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: marking block 36 bad >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 37 -- 1 % complete libmtd: error!: >>>>>>>>> MEMERASE64 ioctl failed for eraseblock 37 (mtd5) >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: error!: failed to erase eraseblock 37 >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error) >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: marking block 37 bad >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: error!: consecutive bad blocks exceed limit: 4, bad flash? >>>>>>>>> # [ 36.322563] vwl1271: disabling >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> git bisect pointed to the following commit: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a9e849efca4f9c7732ea4a81f13ec96208994b22 is the first bad commit >>>>>>>>> commit a9e849efca4f9c7732ea4a81f13ec96208994b22 >>>>>>>>> Author: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Dec 9 11:04:55 2021 +0200 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mtd: rawnand: omap2: move to exec_op interface >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Stop using legacy interface and move to the exec_op interface. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20211209090458.24830-4-rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> :040000 040000 2341051b8aa8e6b554b8a44d2934f76d1aa460c4 >>>>>>>>> c1727080ff16c403f4ad5ed840acc90127b632f8 M drivers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Info to my NAND flash: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [ 5.695760] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xda >>>>>>>>> [ 5.702193] nand: Micron MT29F2G08ABAEAWP >>>>>>>>> [ 5.706356] nand: 256 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: >>>>>>>>> 2048, OOB size: 64 >>>>>>>>> [ 5.714204] nand: using OMAP_ECC_BCH8_CODE_HW ECC scheme >>>>>>>>> [ 5.719673] 6 cmdlinepart partitions found on MTD device omap2-nand.0 >>>>>>>>> [ 5.726232] Creating 6 MTD partitions on "omap2-nand.0": >>>>>>>>> [ 5.731594] 0x000000000000-0x000000020000 : "SPL" >>>>>>>>> [ 5.737788] mtdblock: MTD device 'SPL' is NAND, please consider >>>>>>>>> using UBI block devices instead. >>>>>>>>> [ 5.750113] 0x000000020000-0x000000040000 : "SPL.backup1" >>>>>>>>> [ 5.756916] mtdblock: MTD device 'SPL.backup1' is NAND, please >>>>>>>>> consider using UBI block devices instead. >>>>>>>>> [ 5.769870] 0x000000040000-0x000000060000 : "SPL.backup2" >>>>>>>>> [ 5.776695] mtdblock: MTD device 'SPL.backup2' is NAND, please >>>>>>>>> consider using UBI block devices instead. >>>>>>>>> [ 5.789559] 0x000000060000-0x000000080000 : "SPL.backup3" >>>>>>>>> [ 5.796423] mtdblock: MTD device 'SPL.backup3' is NAND, please >>>>>>>>> consider using UBI block devices instead. >>>>>>>>> [ 5.809341] 0x000000080000-0x000000260000 : "u-boot" >>>>>>>>> [ 5.816652] mtdblock: MTD device 'u-boot' is NAND, please consider >>>>>>>>> using UBI block devices instead. >>>>>>>>> [ 5.829189] 0x000000260000-0x000010000000 : "UBI" >>>>>>>>> [ 5.971508] mtdblock: MTD device 'UBI' is NAND, please consider >>>>>>>>> using UBI block devices instead. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What platform are you on? >>>>>>>> I do remember testing this on omap3-beagle but it does not use BCH8 ECC scheme. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am on am335x [1] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-baltos-ir5221.dts?h=v5.19-rc4 >>>>>> >>>>>> NAND node definition [1]: >>>>>> >>>>>> &gpmc { >>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default"; >>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&nandflash_pins_s0>; >>>>>> ranges = <0 0 0x08000000 0x10000000>; /* CS0: NAND */ >>>>>> status = "okay"; >>>>>> >>>>>> nand@0,0 { >>>>>> compatible = "ti,omap2-nand"; >>>>>> reg = <0 0 4>; /* CS0, offset 0, IO size 4 */ >>>>>> interrupt-parent = <&gpmc>; >>>>>> interrupts = <0 IRQ_TYPE_NONE>, /* fifoevent */ >>>>>> <1 IRQ_TYPE_NONE>; /* termcount */ >>>>>> rb-gpios = <&gpmc 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; /* gpmc_wait0 */ >>>>>> nand-bus-width = <8>; >>>>>> ti,nand-ecc-opt = "bch8"; >>>>>> ti,nand-xfer-type = "polled"; >>>>> >>>>> Could you please change this to "prefetch-polled" and see if it fixes the issue? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I tried to set ti,nand-xfer-type to "polled" on beagle-c4 board and could not reproduce the issue >>>> I will need your help please to debug this issue. >>>> >>>> Could you please apply the below patch on top of commit a9e849efca4f9c7732ea4a81f13ec96208994b22 >>>> and send me the full kernel log and output of ubiformat command? >>> >>> I'll post the data later. >>> >>> The test with the "prefetch-polled" setting looks promising: >>> >>> 1. ubiformat runs without issues >>> 2. I can boot from NAND after "cat MLO > /dev/mtdblock0", etc. >>> 3. the kernel can mount UBIFS as rootfs >>> >>> The only issue I have for now, is that barebox fails to correctly >>> mount the first partition (the second with UBIFS rootfs - no problem). >>> This is how I write to NAND: >>> >>> ubiformat -y /dev/mtd5 >>> ubiattach -p /dev/mtd5 >>> ubimkvol /dev/ubi0 -N kernel -s 56MiB >>> mount -t ubifs ubi0:kernel /mnt >>> cp kernel-fit.itb /mnt >>> umount /mnt >>> ubimkvol /dev/ubi0 -N rootfs -s 180MiB >>> ubiupdatevol /dev/ubi0_1 rootfs.ubifs >>> >>> barebox log: >>> >>> Booting from NAND >>> ubi0: scanning is finished >>> ubi0: registering /dev/nand0.UBI.ubi >>> ubi0: registering kernel as /dev/nand0.UBI.ubi.kernel >>> ubi0: registering rootfs as /dev/nand0.UBI.ubi.rootfs >>> ubi0: attached mtd0 (name "nand0.UBI", size 253 MiB) to ubi0 >>> ubi0: PEB size: 131072 bytes (128 KiB), LEB size: 129024 bytes >>> ubi0: min./max. I/O unit sizes: 2048/2048, sub-page size 512 >>> ubi0: VID header offset: 512 (aligned 512), data offset: 2048 >>> ubi0: good PEBs: 1999, bad PEBs: 30, corrupted PEBs: 0 >> >> Note that we now have 30 bad PEBs. I suppose these are not >> really bad and we need to somehow clear bad block status for these. > > Do you mean using u-boot's "nand scrab"? So far, I didn't found any > other option. There are numerous threads both mtd and barebox mailing > lists but no implementation. > > Unfortunately, I don't have the initial BBT info. So let's hope the > system can handle this. "nand scrub" will mark all sectors not-bad so doesn't look like the best option. I was wondering if there is a better way to selectively mark individual sectors not bad. > > Btw, I have applied your debug patch and executed a ubiformat command > but the debug messages weren't triggered. That is because you no longer see errors during nand erase. Did you try going back to ti,nand-xfer-type = "polled" ? cheers, -roger > > Yegor > >>> ubi0: user volume: 2, internal volumes: 1, max. volumes count: 128 >>> ubi0: max/mean erase counter: 19/13, WL threshold: 65536, image >>> sequence number: 1371250241 >>> ubi0: available PEBs: 64, total reserved PEBs: 1935, PEBs reserved for >>> bad PEB handling: 10 >> >> Only 10 PEBs reserved for bad PEB handling. So this might be causing >> the error while mounting the first volume. >> >>> UBIFS error (ubi0:0): 8fe548c7: bad superblock, error 13 >>> magic 0x6101831 >>> crc 0xfb86a857 >>> node_type 6 (superblock node) >>> group_type 0 (no node group) >>> sqnum 2 >>> len 4096 >>> key_hash 0 (R5) >>> key_fmt 0 (simple) >>> flags 0x8 >>> big_lpt 0 >>> space_fixup 0 >>> min_io_size 2048 >>> leb_size 129024 >>> leb_cnt 456 >>> max_leb_cnt 456 >>> max_bud_bytes 2451456 >>> log_lebs 3 >>> lpt_lebs 2 >>> orph_lebs 2 >>> jhead_cnt 1 >>> fanout 8 >>> lsave_cnt 256 >>> default_compr 3 >>> rp_size 2877235 >>> rp_uid 0 >>> rp_gid 0 >>> fmt_version 5 >>> time_gran 1000000000 >>> UUID 87fa45e8 >>> ubifs ubifs0: probe failed: Invalid argument >>> mount: Invalid argument >>> >>> Yegor >> >> cheers, >> -roger
