sam9x5: MTD numbering changed

Fri Nov 3 02:15:51 PDT 2017

Le vendredi 03 novembre 2017 à 09:06 +0100, Boris Brezillon a écrit :
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 00:12:17 +0100
> Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen at wedev4u.fr> wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Le 02/11/2017 à 18:58, Boris Brezillon a écrit :
> > > On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 18:36:35 +0100
> > > Richard Genoud <richard.genoud at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > 2017-11-02 16:45 GMT+01:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at fre
> > > > e-electrons.com>:  
> > > > > On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 16:28:13 +0100
> > > > > Richard Genoud <richard.genoud at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >    
> > > > > > +Nicolas
> > > > > > [its email got lost somehow]
> > > > > > Le jeudi 02 novembre 2017 à 16:09 +0100, Boris Brezillon a
> > > > > > écrit :    
> > > > > > > On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 15:13:47 +0100
> > > > > > > Richard Genoud <richard.genoud at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >    
> > > > > > > > Le jeudi 02 novembre 2017 à 13:39 +0100, Boris
> > > > > > > > Brezillon a écrit :    
> > > > > > > > > +Nicolas
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Hi Richard,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 12:17:16 +0100
> > > > > > > > > Richard Genoud <richard.genoud at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >    
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > I've got an at91sam9g35-cm based board, with 4
> > > > > > > > > > partition on the
> > > > > > > > > > spi-
> > > > > > > > > > dataflas and 5 partitions on the NAND flash.
> > > > > > > > > > Before commit 1004a2977bdc ("ARM: dts: at91: Switch
> > > > > > > > > > to the new
> > > > > > > > > > NAND
> > > > > > > > > > bindings"),
> > > > > > > > > > the NAND partitions were mtd0-4 and spi-dataflash
> > > > > > > > > > partitions
> > > > > > > > > > mtd5-
> > > > > > > > > > 8.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Since commit 1004a2977bdc ("ARM: dts: at91: Switch
> > > > > > > > > > to the new
> > > > > > > > > > NAND
> > > > > > > > > > bindings"),
> > > > > > > > > > the spi-dataflash partitions are discovered before
> > > > > > > > > > the NAND
> > > > > > > > > > partitions.
> > > > > > > > > > So NAND partition became mtd4-8 and spi-dataflash
> > > > > > > > > > partition
> > > > > > > > > > mtd0-3.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > This broke some script that relied on the mtd
> > > > > > > > > > numbering.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Updating those scripts to rely on the mtd device
> > > > > > > > > > name instead
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > number is not really a problem. The real problem is
> > > > > > > > > > when an
> > > > > > > > > > older
> > > > > > > > > > script using mtd numbering is run on the new system
> > > > > > > > > > : I expect
> > > > > > > > > > dead
> > > > > > > > > > kittens everywhere !    
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Crap! That was one of the thing I was afraid of when
> > > > > > > > > changing the
> > > > > > > > > binding: probe order has an impact on ids assigned to
> > > > > > > > > MTD devs,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > since things are not defined at the same place in the
> > > > > > > > > DT, it
> > > > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > the probe order.
> > > > > > > > >    
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > So, I'd like to know if there's a way to force the
> > > > > > > > > > older
> > > > > > > > > > numbering
> > > > > > > > > > ?    
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Reverting the patches is probably the easiest way
> > > > > > > > > (and it's
> > > > > > > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > backportable). Now, if we want to switch to the new
> > > > > > > > > bindings at
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > point we'll need to support DT aliases for mtd devs:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > aliases {
> > > > > > > > >         mtdX = &flashpartN;
> > > > > > > > >         mtdY = &flashdevM;
> > > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > The problem with this solution is that it only works
> > > > > > > > > if all
> > > > > > > > > partitions
> > > > > > > > > are defined in the DT, which is not always the case
> > > > > > > > > (they can be
> > > > > > > > > defined
> > > > > > > > > on the command line with mtdparts=).    
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Yes, and if they are different from the ones declared
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > at91sam9x5cm.dtsi, they are likely defined with
> > > > > > > > mtdparts=, since
> > > > > > > > AFAIK,
> > > > > > > > we can't remove a declared partitionning.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I'll disable the ebi and switch back to the old binding
> > > > > > > > in my dts
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > now.    
> > > > > > > > >    
> > > > > > > > > > (I tried poking around the DTS without succès).
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > any idea ?    
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I don't have a perfect solution, but the problem you
> > > > > > > > > report
> > > > > > > > > clearly
> > > > > > > > > shows that relying on MTD numbering is unsafe and
> > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > avoided.    
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Clearly, but who doesn't ? ;)
> > > > > > > >    
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Just had a lengthy discussion with Alexandre, and he
> > > > > > > brought a valid
> > > > > > > point: there has never been any guarantee on MTD
> > > > > > > numbering. Not only
> > > > > > > the order of DT nodes have an impact on the probe order,
> > > > > > > but also the
> > > > > > > order in which drivers are linked when creating the
> > > > > > > kernel image. Yes
> > > > > > > these things usually don't change, but I'm not sure it's
> > > > > > > a good idea
> > > > > > > to let user-space apps think it will never change in the
> > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > How about fixing the scripts you were referring to
> > > > > > > instead of
> > > > > > > reverting
> > > > > > > the change? What's the blocking point?    
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I already fixed the user-space scripts (and actually, they
> > > > > > predate the
> > > > > > device-tree era, so at that time, relying on MTD numbering
> > > > > > wasn't so
> > > > > > bad :)).
> > > > > > Anyway, here's the blocking point :
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We have firmwares with an embedded script to update our
> > > > > > boards. (more
> > > > > > or less a FW + script in a zip file).
> > > > > > Those old firmwares are already in the wild and rely on the
> > > > > > old MTD
> > > > > > numbering (yes, that's bad).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > So, even if all new scripts are corrected in the new
> > > > > > firmwares,
> > > > > > downgrading a board with an old firmware/old script will
> > > > > > brick the
> > > > > > board.
> > > > > > So I'll have to detect that and forbid downgrading.    
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not sure what you refer to when you're talking about 'FW',
> > > > > but I'd
> > > > > expect it to contain a kernel [+ a dtb] + a rootfs, so if
> > > > > you're using
> > > > > an old "FW+update-script", you will still have the old
> > > > > numbering and
> > > > > the old script will work just fine, and if you switch to a
> > > > > newer version
> > > > > of the "FW+update-script" based on a 4.13 kernel+dtb you will
> > > > > anyway
> > > > > have the updated script. Am I missing something?    
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, let's have an example.
> > > > New firmware : kernel
> > > > 4.14+dtb+rootfs+uboot+uboot_env+at91bootstrap+new update
> > > > script.
> > > > Old firmware : kernel 4.11 + dtb + rootfs + uboot +
> > > > uboot_env+at91bootstrap+old update script.
> > > > 
> > > > Let's suppose there's the new firmware on the board (let's call
> > > > it
> > > > 4.14 firmware) :
> > > > MTD0 is the dataflash partition 0 (at91bootstrap)
> > > > MTD1 is the dataflash part1 (uboot)
> > > > MTD2 is the dataflash part2 (ubootenv)
> > > > MTD3 is the dataflash part3 (free space)
> > > > MTD4 is the NAND part 0 (dtb)
> > > > MTD5 is the NAND part 1 (kernel)
> > > > MTD6 is the NAND part 2 (UBI) <- in this one, there're 3 ubifs
> > > > volumes
> > > > : rootfs/rootfs2/data
> > > > 
> > > > The thing is, the update script runs in user-space and updates
> > > > the
> > > > kernel, dtb, uboot, bootstrap and flashes the rootfs2.
> > > > (on next boot, the rootfs2/rootfs will be atomically swapped)
> > > > So, when downgrading, the old update script is executed on the
> > > > board,
> > > > under the 4.14 firmware, thinking that MTD0 is the NAND part0
> > > > (dtb),
> > > > while it is actually the dataflash part0 (bootstrap).  
> > > > => the bootstrap is erased and replaced by the dtb (well,
> > > > actually, it    
> > > > won't even be like that since there will be a mismatch between
> > > > nandwrite/flash_part).  
> > > 
> > > Can you re-generate zip archives for old versions? If you can
> > > maybe it
> > > would be simpler to just embed the new update script (assuming
> > > this
> > > script works fine with both old and new FW) in old FW archives.
> > >  
> > 
> > No sure, I've totally understand the issue, if not sorry for the
> > noise!
> > 
> > Would it be possible to use some udev rules to create some symbolic
> > links
> > in /dev based on ATTRS{name}, the mtd partition names?
> > 
> > something like:
> > /dev/mtd-at91bootstrap -> /dev/mtd0
> > /dev/mtd-uboot -> /dev/mtd1
> > /dev/mtd-ubootenv -> /dev/mtd2
> > /dev/mtd-free -> /dev/mtd3
> > /dev/mtd-dtb -> /dev/mtd4
> > /dev/mtd-kernel -> /dev/mtd5
> > /dev/mtd-ubi -> /dev/mtd6
> 
> Yep, we should definitely have a udev rule populating
> a /dev/mtd/by-name/ directory, just like there is a /dev/disk/by-
> uuid.
Yes, udev rules can be a solution.
And I agree on the /dev/mtd/by-name/ directory, that would be a nice
thing.

> 
> > 
> > Then if the new update script only uses symbolic names, it should
> > work with
> > both linux 4.11 and 4.14 kernels.
> > 
> > But I think I didn't totally understand why/how the old update
> > script would
> > be run under the new kernel :p
> 
> The problem is that the update script in embedded in the archive
> containing image(s) to flash, so old archives still have the old
> script, which means, if you try to downgrade to an older version from
> a
> new version you're screwed because it will use /dev/mtdX directly
> without checking if this is the right partition.