Hi Roger, On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:28 PM Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Haven't found anything suitable so far. > > > > 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" ? I have applied the patch to a9e849efca4f9c7732ea4a81f13ec96208994b22 and at that time our DTS still has xfer type as "polled" and ubiformat command failed as expected. Yegor > 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
