[PATCH] mtd: nand: omap: Fix NAND enumeration on 3430 LDP

[Tom Rini]

On 11/13/2014 06:29 AM, Roger Quadros wrote:
> On 11/12/2014 08:02 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> * pekon <pekon at pek-sem.com> [141109 11:31]:
>>> On Saturday 08 November 2014 04:18 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Right. I doubt anybody has bch8 rootfs on LDP.. And considering u-boot
>>>> must be ham1 to boot at all, that's what we should change for the
>>>> devices that do not have not standardized on bch8.
>>>>
>>> My view on this is slightly different:
>>> - Lately, everyone seems to have migrated to BCH8.
>>>
>>> - Also HAM1 does not have strength to fix bitflips in aging NAND. So if
>>> someone already has OMAP3-LDP deployed on field then its NAND would have
>>> already aged to such an extend that HAM1 may not be sufficient.
>>
>> OK so it makes sense to keep it as BCH8 then. Would be nice to get
>> the writing u-boot from kernel issue fixed somehow though as people
>> are hitting that for sure.
> 
> What about performance impact? OMAP3 doesn't have ELM module. So error location
> for BCH8 has to be done in software.
> 
>>  
>>> My question is..
>>> Moving back to HAM1 should be decided based on statistics rather than rule
>>> of breaking backward compatibility. So please review:
>>> (1) How many user of OMAP3-Zoom or other old boards complaining about using
>>> BCH8 in mainline kernel? OR
>>
>> 0
>>
>>> (2) How many users of OMAP3 legacy boards are migrating to newer kernel?
>>
>> Quite a few for sure, but are probably also using rootfs on MMC instead.
>>  
>>> At-least I have not, rather most of the OMAP3 users I interacted via TI's
>>> E2E forum wanted to migrate to BCH8 or even BCH16, as HAM1 was not
>>> sufficient for their usage.
>>>
>>> So whatever you decide on this topic, please be cautious that you don't
>>> re-invent work for yourself, as I did. It took me lot of time and testing
>>> effort on multiple boards to migrate HAM1 to BCH8, And add BCH16 for newer
>>> devices.
>>
>> Right no objections to using BCH8 for rootfs, except it stopped working
>> over past year or so.
> 
> This would be BCH8-sw on OMAP3 right? AM3xx uses BCH8-hw and that seems to work fine.
> So it seems nobody has used/tested BCH8-sw.

A few years back, and I want to choose my words carefully when talking
about error correction, BCH8-sw was "working" well enough for rootfs (I
didn't induce any particular amount of errors or try and cause corner
cases, etc, etc).

>> And it seems the settings should be partition specific because of u-boot
>> requiring HAM1.
>>
> I don't think we have partition specific ECC scheme support in u-boot or kernel,
> so it will become messy to manage.
> That means we either stick with HAM1 for all partitions or don't support NAND boot
> at all and go with any other ECC scheme for OMAP3.

This is indeed where life starts getting more complicated than what we
allow for today in both U-Boot and Kernel, as I recall things anyhow.  I
think omap3 does (and I know am335x and later do) allow for saying ECC
is all done on-chip and ROM should do nothing.  But if you want to boot
you're going to be limited to HAM1 (or in some cases BCH4?  I didn't
have to deal with these parts myself so second-hand recollections here)
if you want to _boot_.  So you'll be in that particular area of the part
life-span where you have to worry about read disturbances and so forth.

We _really_ do need (in both kernel and U-Boot) the ability to say a
"partition" has ECC scheme X and another has scheme Y due to limitations
on what you can boot from vs what you need for the (continued) life span
of the device in question.
-- 
Tom