lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mtd: nand: gpmi: fall back to legacy mode if no ECC information present
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 23:16:57 +0100
stefan@agner.ch wrote:

> Hi Boris,
>
> [Also adding Huang]
>
> On 31.01.2018 22:18, stefan@agner.ch wrote:
> > I accidentally removed ML/cc before, re-adding.
> >
> > On 31.01.2018 10:57, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 10:19:05 +0100
> >> stefan@agner.ch wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 30.01.2018 14:23, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >>> > Hi Stefan,
> >>> >
> >>> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:44:40 +0100
> >>> > Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> In case fsl,use-minimum-ecc is set, the driver tries to determine
> >>> >> ECC layout by using the ECC information provided by the MTD stack.
> >>> >> However, in case the NAND chip does not provide any information,
> >>> >> the driver currently fails with:
> >>> >> nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0xc2, Chip ID: 0xf1
> >>> >> nand: Macronix NAND 128MiB 3,3V 8-bit
> >>> >> nand: 128 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64
> >>> >> gpmi-nand 1806000.gpmi-nand: Error setting BCH geometry : 1
> >>> >> gpmi-nand: probe of 1806000.gpmi-nand failed with error 1
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Fall back to implementation specific default mode if no ECC
> >>> >> information are provided by the NAND chip and fsl,use-minimum-ecc
> >>> >> is specified.
> >>> >
> >>> > Hm, this sounds a bit fragile: if we ever fix the Macronix driver
> >>> > (which should be done BTW) to set the appropriate ECC requirements, it
> >>> > will break all platforms that were relying on this 'fall back to legacy
> >>> > logic'.
> >>>
> >>> I see. It is just that downstream behaves that way, hence we sell
> >>> modules which use minimal ECC on ONFI enabled chips and legacy (maximum
> >>> ECC which fits into OOB) on modules with non-ONFI chips.
> >>
> >> And I guess you use the same DT for both variants of the board :-/
> >>
> >
> > Actually we only have two SKUs, and they differ also otherwise so I have
> > two DTs anyway.
> >
> >>>
> >>> Currently we operate the above Macronix chip with 8-bit ECC since quite
> >>> a while.
> >>
> >> Honestly, I don't see a good solution here except adding an extra DT or
> >> live-patching it from the bootloader, because, even if this hack works
> >> for you know, it might not in the future.
> >
> > Extra DT is fine for Linux.
> >
> > The problem is more with U-Boot, where I tried to add minimal ECC
> > support via Kconfig symbol and align with Linux behavior. For U-Boot I
> > would really prefer to have a single binary for all SKUs...
> >
> > I already sent a first patchset
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/867180/
> >
> > I guess it should be somehow possible to do a board specific selection
> > of ECC. But this is a discussion for another thread.
> >
> >>
> >> In the future, if you plan to have boards with different variants of
> >> NANDs, I recommend that you always maximize ECC, this way you won't
> >> have this kind of issues.
> >
> > Makes sense. Unfortunately, for those products we already ship, changing
> > would be rather painful.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> > So, if what you really want is legacy_set_geometry(), don't specify
> >>> > "fsl,use-minimum-ecc" in your DT and you should be good. Otherwise, fix
> >>> > the Macronix driver to initialize ->ecc_{strength,step_size}_ds
> >>> > appropriately.
> >>>
> >>> The datasheet says:
> >>> • High Reliability
> >>> - Endurance: 100K cycles (with 1-bit ECC per 528-byte)
> >>>
> >>> So we would set ecc_strenght to 1?
> >>
> >> If the datasheet says so, then yes, you should have
> >> ->ecc_strength_ds = 1 and ->ecc_step_size_ds = 512.
> >>
> >>> But then there is almost no room for
> >>> wear leveling. I remember that I dumped the fixed bits once on such a
> >>> chip, and there were several blocks from factory which needed one bit
> >>> fixed...
> >>
> >> Well, that's a different issue. You might want to maximize the ECC
> >> strength for your specific board. In this case, you should not specify
> >> "fsl,use-minimum-ecc" in your DT, or, if the driver supports it (but I
> >> doubt it does), you should add "nand-ecc-maximize". Alternatively, if
> >> you want to keep some of the OOB space, you can ask for a specific ECC
> >> config with the "nand-ecc-strength" and "nand-ecc-step-size" properties.
> >
> > Different issue, but in the end all I care about: Does wear leveling
> > work properly.
> >
> > The NAND chip documentation also mentions that typical access is per
> > page (2K), I guess if one uses a single ECC across the complete page
> > then 4-bits are available, which should allow a somewhat decent wear
> > leveling.
> >
> > I guess we can go with nand-ecc-strength/nand-ecc-step-size for that
> > chip for now.
>
> This seems not to be the case for the driver in question gpmi_nand_init
> calls:
> nand_scan_ident -> nand_dt_init (which fills
> chip->ecc.strength/chip->ecc.size)
>
> then
>
> gpmi_init_last -> gpmi_set_geometry -> bch_set_geometry ->
> legacy_set_geometry/set_geometry_by_ecc_info
>
> In both cases struct bch_geometry is calculated and overwrites
> ecc.strength/ecc.size (without considering either of them,
> set_geometry_by_ecc_info is considering ecc_strength_ds/ecc_step_ds
> though).
>
> I guess we would have to add a third option in case device tree
> specifies strength/size, and validate whether it can be reasonably
> fulfilled?
>
> E.g. extend common_nfc_set_geometry:
>
>
> int common_nfc_set_geometry(struct gpmi_nand_data *this)
> {
> + struct nand_chip *chip = &this->nand;
> +
> + if (chip->ecc.strength set && chip->ecc.strength set)
> + return set_geometry_by_ecc_dt_info(this);
> +
> if ((of_property_read_bool(this->dev->of_node, "fsl,use-minimum-ecc"))
> || legacy_set_geometry(this))
> return set_geometry_by_ecc_info(this);
>
> return 0;
> }

Or you can just patch set_geometry_by_ecc_info() to use
chip->ecc.strength and chip->ecc.size if they are set and fall back to
chip->ecc_strength_ds and chip->ecc_step_ds when they're not:

--->8---
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c
index ab9a0a2ed3b2..ded4b7389960 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c
@@ -204,11 +204,19 @@ static int set_geometry_by_ecc_info(struct gpmi_nand_data *this)
struct nand_chip *chip = &this->nand;
struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip);
unsigned int block_mark_bit_offset;
-
- if (!(chip->ecc_strength_ds > 0 && chip->ecc_step_ds > 0))
+ unsigned int ecc_strength, ecc_step;
+
+ if (chip->ecc.strength > 0 && chip->ecc.size > 0) {
+ ecc_strength = chip->ecc.strength;
+ ecc_step = chip->ecc.size;
+ } else if (chip->ecc_strength_ds > 0 && chip->ecc_step_ds > 0) {
+ ecc_strength = chip->ecc_strength_ds;
+ ecc_step = chip->ecc_step_ds;
+ } else {
return -EINVAL;
+ }

- switch (chip->ecc_step_ds) {
+ switch (ecc_step) {
case SZ_512:
geo->gf_len = 13;
break;
@@ -218,11 +226,11 @@ static int set_geometry_by_ecc_info(struct gpmi_nand_data *this)
default:
dev_err(this->dev,
"unsupported nand chip. ecc bits : %d, ecc size : %d\n",
- chip->ecc_strength_ds, chip->ecc_step_ds);
+ ecc_strength, ecc_step);
return -EINVAL;
}
- geo->ecc_chunk_size = chip->ecc_step_ds;
- geo->ecc_strength = round_up(chip->ecc_strength_ds, 2);
+ geo->ecc_chunk_size = ecc_step;
+ geo->ecc_strength = round_up(ecc_strength, 2);
if (!gpmi_check_ecc(this))
return -EINVAL;

@@ -230,10 +238,12 @@ static int set_geometry_by_ecc_info(struct gpmi_nand_data *this)
if (geo->ecc_chunk_size < mtd->oobsize) {
dev_err(this->dev,
"unsupported nand chip. ecc size: %d, oob size : %d\n",
- chip->ecc_step_ds, mtd->oobsize);
+ ecc_step, mtd->oobsize);
return -EINVAL;
}

+ chip->ecc.strength = geo->ecc_strength;
+
/* The default value, see comment in the legacy_set_geometry(). */
geo->metadata_size = 10;
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-06 16:42    [W:0.066 / U:7.360 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site