Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 6 Feb 2018 16:40:53 +0100 | From | Boris Brezillon <> | Subject | Re: [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;
| |