Hi Yegor, On 11/07/2022 10:24, Yegor Yefremov wrote: > 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. If the NAND part is not the same as that on am335x-evm then you might need to adjust those settings to better suit the actual NAND part on the board. cheers, -roger > > Yegor > >> Can you please send a patch with the fix? Thanks! >> >>> >>> Thanks for your help. >>> >>> Yegor >> >> cheers, >> -roger
