Hi Roger, On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 8:52 AM Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello Yegor, > > On 05/07/2022 17:46, Yegor Yefremov wrote: > > Hi Roger, > > > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:31 PM Yegor Yefremov > > <yegorslists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> 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, > >>>>>llo > >>>>> 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. > > > > I think the issue is solved. The bootloader was actually complaining > > about the missing zstd support. I could see this with the latest > > barebox version (2022.06). > > > > I've also switched to "ti,nand-xfer-type = "prefetch-dma";" as other DTS do. > > Just to conclude, > 1) Barebox issue was barebox configuration related. > 2) NAND erase issue was fixed by switching to "prefetch-dma" or "prefetch-polled" This is correct. > Does the issue still happen with "polled"? If yes it might be due to too less > GPMC timing value for Read/Busy signalling. What particular setting do you mean? gpmc,sync-clk-ps = <0>; gpmc,cs-on-ns = <0>; gpmc,cs-rd-off-ns = <44>; gpmc,cs-wr-off-ns = <44>; gpmc,adv-on-ns = <6>; gpmc,adv-rd-off-ns = <34>; gpmc,adv-wr-off-ns = <44>; gpmc,we-on-ns = <0>; gpmc,we-off-ns = <40>; gpmc,oe-on-ns = <0>; gpmc,oe-off-ns = <54>; gpmc,access-ns = <64>; gpmc,rd-cycle-ns = <82>; gpmc,wr-cycle-ns = <82>; gpmc,bus-turnaround-ns = <0>; gpmc,cycle2cycle-delay-ns = <0>; gpmc,clk-activation-ns = <0>; gpmc,wr-access-ns = <40>; gpmc,wr-data-mux-bus-ns = <0>; I just copied the settings from am335x-evm.dts. Yegor > Can you please send a patch with the fix? Thanks! > > > > > Thanks for your help. > > > > Yegor > > cheers, > -roger
