32-bit Amlogic (ARM) SoC: kernel BUG in kfree()

Martin Blumenstingl martin.blumenstingl at googlemail.com
Sat Jun 8 13:00:31 PDT 2019


Hi Liang,

On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:00 AM Liang Yang <liang.yang at amlogic.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
> On 2019/4/11 1:54, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > Hi Liang,
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 1:08 PM Liang Yang <liang.yang at amlogic.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> On 2019/4/5 12:30, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> >>> Hi Liang,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:44 AM Liang Yang <liang.yang at amlogic.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Martin,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2019/3/29 2:03, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Liang,
> >>>> [......]
> >>>>>> I don't think it is caused by a different NAND type, but i have followed
> >>>>>> the some test on my GXL platform. we can see the result from the
> >>>>>> attachment. By the way, i don't find any information about this on meson
> >>>>>> NFC datasheet, so i will ask our VLSI.
> >>>>>> Martin, May you reproduce it with the new patch on meson8b platform ? I
> >>>>>> need a more clear and easier compared log like gxl.txt. Thanks.
> >>>>> your gxl.txt is great, finally I can also compare my own results with
> >>>>> something that works for you!
> >>>>> in my results (see attachment) the "DATA_IN  [256 B, force 8-bit]"
> >>>>> instructions result in a different info buffer output.
> >>>>> does this make any sense to you?
> >>>>>
> >>>> I have asked our VLSI designer for explanation or simulation result by
> >>>> an e-mail. Thanks.
> >>> do you have any update on this?
> >> Sorry. I haven't got reply from VLSI designer yet. We tried to improve
> >> priority yesterday, but i still can't estimate the time. There is no
> >> document or change list showing the difference between m8/b and gxl/axg
> >> serial chips. Now it seems that we can't use command NFC_CMD_N2M on nand
> >> initialization for m8/b chips and use *read byte from NFC fifo register*
> >> instead.
> > thank you for the status update!
> >
> > I am trying to understand your suggestion not to use NFC_CMD_N2M:
> > the documentation (public S922X datasheet from Hardkernel: [0]) states
> > that P_NAND_BUF (NFC_REG_BUF in the meson_nand driver) can hold up to
> > four bytes of data. is this the "read byte from NFC FIFO register" you
> > mentioned?
> >
> You are right.take the early meson NFC driver V2 on previous mail as a
> reference.
>
> > Before I spend time changing the code to use the FIFO register I would
> > like to wait for an answer from your VLSI designer.
> > Setting the "correct" info buffer length for NFC_CMD_N2M on the 32-bit
> > SoCs seems like an easier solution compared to switching to the FIFO
> > register. Keeping NFC_CMD_N2M on the 32-bit SoCs also allows us to
> > have only one code-path for 32 and 64 bit SoCs, meaning we don't have
> > to maintain two separate code-paths for basically the same
> > functionality (assuming that NFC_CMD_N2M is not completely broken on
> > the 32-bit SoCs, we just don't know how to use it yet).
> >
> All right. I am also waiting for the answer.
do you have any update on this?


Martin



More information about the linux-mtd mailing list