raw/omap2: erasing issue
Yegor Yefremov
yegorslists at googlemail.com
Tue Jul 5 05:16:37 PDT 2022
Hi Roger,
On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:31 PM Yegor Yefremov
<yegorslists at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 12:28 PM Roger Quadros <rogerq at kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Yegor,
> >
> > On 04/07/2022 14:28, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
> > > Hi Roger,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 1:22 PM Roger Quadros <rogerq at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi Yegor,
> > >>
> > >> On 29/06/2022 17:23, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
> > >>> Hi Roger,
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 3:44 PM Roger Quadros <rogerq at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Yegor,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 29/06/2022 14:33, Roger Quadros wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi Yegor,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 28/06/2022 14:59, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 1:57 PM Yegor Yefremov
> > >>>>>> <yegorslists at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Hi Roger,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 1:44 PM Roger Quadros <rogerq at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Hi Yegor,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 28/06/2022 13:48, Yegor Yefremov wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Since linux 5.17 I get the following issue when doing ubiformat:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> # ubiformat -y /dev/mtd5
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: mtd5 (nand), size 265945088 bytes (253.6 MiB), 2029
> > >>>>>>>>> eraseblocks of 131072 bytes (128.0 KiB), min. I/O size 2048 bytes
> > >>>>>>>>> libscan: scanning eraseblock 1097 -- 54 % complete eth1 timed out to bring up
> > >>>>>>>>> libscan: scanning eraseblock 2028 -- 100 % complete
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: 2001 eraseblocks have valid erase counter, mean value is 9
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: 2 eraseblocks are supposedly empty
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: 26 bad eraseblocks found, numbers: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10,
> > >>>>>>>>> 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30,
> > >>>>>>>>> 31, 32
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I'm guessing these bad blocks recently added due to the offending patch?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Yes.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eras[ 33.644323] nand: nand_erase_nand:
> > >>>>>>>>> attempt to erase a bad block at page 0x00000d40
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 28[ 33.658809] nand:
> > >>>>>>>>> nand_erase_nand: attempt to erase a bad block at page 0x00000d80
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 29 -- 1 % [ 33.674531] nand:
> > >>>>>>>>> nand_erase_nand: attempt to erase a bad block at page 0x00000dc0
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 30 -- 1 % complete [ 33.684508]
> > >>>>>>>>> nand: nand_erase_nand: attempt to erase a bad block at page 0x00000e00
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 34 -- 1 % complete libmtd: error!:
> > >>>>>>>>> MEMERASE64 ioctl failed for eraseblock 34 (mtd5)
> > >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: error!: failed to erase eraseblock 34
> > >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error)
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: marking block 34 bad
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 35 -- 1 % complete libmtd: error!:
> > >>>>>>>>> MEMERASE64 ioctl failed for eraseblock 35 (mtd5)
> > >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: error!: failed to erase eraseblock 35
> > >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error)
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: marking block 35 bad
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 36 -- 1 % complete libmtd: error!:
> > >>>>>>>>> MEMERASE64 ioctl failed for eraseblock 36 (mtd5)
> > >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: error!: failed to erase eraseblock 36
> > >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error)
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: marking block 36 bad
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: formatting eraseblock 37 -- 1 % complete libmtd: error!:
> > >>>>>>>>> MEMERASE64 ioctl failed for eraseblock 37 (mtd5)
> > >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error)
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: error!: failed to erase eraseblock 37
> > >>>>>>>>> error 5 (Input/output error)
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: marking block 37 bad
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> ubiformat: error!: consecutive bad blocks exceed limit: 4, bad flash?
> > >>>>>>>>> # [ 36.322563] vwl1271: disabling
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> git bisect pointed to the following commit:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> a9e849efca4f9c7732ea4a81f13ec96208994b22 is the first bad commit
> > >>>>>>>>> commit a9e849efca4f9c7732ea4a81f13ec96208994b22
> > >>>>>>>>> Author: Roger Quadros <rogerq at kernel.org>
> > >>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Dec 9 11:04:55 2021 +0200
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> mtd: rawnand: omap2: move to exec_op interface
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Stop using legacy interface and move to the exec_op interface.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq at kernel.org>
> > >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal at bootlin.com>
> > >>>>>>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mtd/20211209090458.24830-4-rogerq@kernel.org
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> :040000 040000 2341051b8aa8e6b554b8a44d2934f76d1aa460c4
> > >>>>>>>>> c1727080ff16c403f4ad5ed840acc90127b632f8 M drivers
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Info to my NAND flash:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.695760] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xda
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.702193] nand: Micron MT29F2G08ABAEAWP
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.706356] nand: 256 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size:
> > >>>>>>>>> 2048, OOB size: 64
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.714204] nand: using OMAP_ECC_BCH8_CODE_HW ECC scheme
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.719673] 6 cmdlinepart partitions found on MTD device omap2-nand.0
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.726232] Creating 6 MTD partitions on "omap2-nand.0":
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.731594] 0x000000000000-0x000000020000 : "SPL"
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.737788] mtdblock: MTD device 'SPL' is NAND, please consider
> > >>>>>>>>> using UBI block devices instead.
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.750113] 0x000000020000-0x000000040000 : "SPL.backup1"
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.756916] mtdblock: MTD device 'SPL.backup1' is NAND, please
> > >>>>>>>>> consider using UBI block devices instead.
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.769870] 0x000000040000-0x000000060000 : "SPL.backup2"
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.776695] mtdblock: MTD device 'SPL.backup2' is NAND, please
> > >>>>>>>>> consider using UBI block devices instead.
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.789559] 0x000000060000-0x000000080000 : "SPL.backup3"
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.796423] mtdblock: MTD device 'SPL.backup3' is NAND, please
> > >>>>>>>>> consider using UBI block devices instead.
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.809341] 0x000000080000-0x000000260000 : "u-boot"
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.816652] mtdblock: MTD device 'u-boot' is NAND, please consider
> > >>>>>>>>> using UBI block devices instead.
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.829189] 0x000000260000-0x000010000000 : "UBI"
> > >>>>>>>>> [ 5.971508] mtdblock: MTD device 'UBI' is NAND, please consider
> > >>>>>>>>> using UBI block devices instead.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> What platform are you on?
> > >>>>>>>> I do remember testing this on omap3-beagle but it does not use BCH8 ECC scheme.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I am on am335x [1]
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/boot/dts/am335x-baltos-ir5221.dts?h=v5.19-rc4
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> NAND node definition [1]:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> &gpmc {
> > >>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
> > >>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&nandflash_pins_s0>;
> > >>>>>> ranges = <0 0 0x08000000 0x10000000>; /* CS0: NAND */
> > >>>>>> status = "okay";
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> nand at 0,0 {
> > >>>>>> compatible = "ti,omap2-nand";
> > >>>>>> reg = <0 0 4>; /* CS0, offset 0, IO size 4 */
> > >>>>>> interrupt-parent = <&gpmc>;
> > >>>>>> interrupts = <0 IRQ_TYPE_NONE>, /* fifoevent */
> > >>>>>> <1 IRQ_TYPE_NONE>; /* termcount */
> > >>>>>> rb-gpios = <&gpmc 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; /* gpmc_wait0 */
> > >>>>>> nand-bus-width = <8>;
> > >>>>>> ti,nand-ecc-opt = "bch8";
> > >>>>>> ti,nand-xfer-type = "polled";
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Could you please change this to "prefetch-polled" and see if it fixes the issue?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I tried to set ti,nand-xfer-type to "polled" on beagle-c4 board and could not reproduce the issue
> > >>>> I will need your help please to debug this issue.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Could you please apply the below patch on top of commit a9e849efca4f9c7732ea4a81f13ec96208994b22
> > >>>> and send me the full kernel log and output of ubiformat command?
> > >>>
> > >>> I'll post the data later.
> > >>>
> > >>> The test with the "prefetch-polled" setting looks promising:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. ubiformat runs without issues
> > >>> 2. I can boot from NAND after "cat MLO > /dev/mtdblock0", etc.
> > >>> 3. the kernel can mount UBIFS as rootfs
> > >>>
> > >>> The only issue I have for now, is that barebox fails to correctly
> > >>> mount the first partition (the second with UBIFS rootfs - no problem).
> > >>> This is how I write to NAND:
> > >>>
> > >>> ubiformat -y /dev/mtd5
> > >>> ubiattach -p /dev/mtd5
> > >>> ubimkvol /dev/ubi0 -N kernel -s 56MiB
> > >>> mount -t ubifs ubi0:kernel /mnt
> > >>> cp kernel-fit.itb /mnt
> > >>> umount /mnt
> > >>> ubimkvol /dev/ubi0 -N rootfs -s 180MiB
> > >>> ubiupdatevol /dev/ubi0_1 rootfs.ubifs
> > >>>
> > >>> barebox log:
> > >>>
> > >>> Booting from NAND
> > >>> ubi0: scanning is finished
> > >>> ubi0: registering /dev/nand0.UBI.ubi
> > >>> ubi0: registering kernel as /dev/nand0.UBI.ubi.kernel
> > >>> ubi0: registering rootfs as /dev/nand0.UBI.ubi.rootfs
> > >>> ubi0: attached mtd0 (name "nand0.UBI", size 253 MiB) to ubi0
> > >>> ubi0: PEB size: 131072 bytes (128 KiB), LEB size: 129024 bytes
> > >>> ubi0: min./max. I/O unit sizes: 2048/2048, sub-page size 512
> > >>> ubi0: VID header offset: 512 (aligned 512), data offset: 2048
> > >>> ubi0: good PEBs: 1999, bad PEBs: 30, corrupted PEBs: 0
> > >>
> > >> Note that we now have 30 bad PEBs. I suppose these are not
> > >> really bad and we need to somehow clear bad block status for these.
> > >
> > > Do you mean using u-boot's "nand scrab"? So far, I didn't found any
> > > other option. There are numerous threads both mtd and barebox mailing
> > > lists but no implementation.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I don't have the initial BBT info. So let's hope the
> > > system can handle this.
> >
> >
> > "nand scrub" will mark all sectors not-bad so doesn't look like the best option.
> > I was wondering if there is a better way to selectively mark individual sectors not bad.
>
> Haven't found anything suitable so far.
>
> > >
> > > Btw, I have applied your debug patch and executed a ubiformat command
> > > but the debug messages weren't triggered.
> >
> > That is because you no longer see errors during nand erase. Did you try
> > going back to ti,nand-xfer-type = "polled" ?
>
> I have applied the patch to a9e849efca4f9c7732ea4a81f13ec96208994b22
> and at that time our DTS still has xfer type as "polled" and ubiformat
> command failed as expected.
I think the issue is solved. The bootloader was actually complaining
about the missing zstd support. I could see this with the latest
barebox version (2022.06).
I've also switched to "ti,nand-xfer-type = "prefetch-dma";" as other DTS do.
Thanks for your help.
Yegor
More information about the linux-mtd
mailing list