[BUG] pxa3xx: wait time out when scanning for bb

[Sean Nyekjær]

Hi Miquel

> As you may know, I am actively working on a new interface in the NAND
> core called ->exec_op() (see [1] and [2]) and the first driver to
> implement this interface is a rework of pxa3xx_nand.c renamed
> marvell_nand.c (see [3]).
>
> May I suggest you to test these changes and report me if it fails? I
> prepared a branch ready to be tested (just add your own device tree),
> available on my Github at [4].
>
> If you have failures, it would be great to enable dynamic debug in the
> core (put #define DEBUG before all #includes in
> drivers/mtd/nand/nand_core.c) and report on the mailing list what you
> get. Otherwise, you may stack this commits on top of your branch, or
> wait for 4.16 to be released (hopefully).
>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl
>
> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg619633.html
> [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2017-December/077965.html
> [3] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2017-December/077973.html
> [4] https://github.com/miquelraynal/linux/tree/marvell/nand-next/nfc-rework
>
Thanks I didn't know about that :-)

I had a look at it and I have rebased my stuff on top of your branch.
I have edited my devicetree to look like this:
&nand_controller {
     status = "okay";
     pinctrl-names = "default";
     pinctrl-0 = <&nand_pins>, <&nand_rb>;

     nand at 0 {
         reg = <0>;
         label = "pxa3xx_nand-0";
         marvell,rb = <0>;
         marvell,nand-keep-config;
         nand-on-flash-bbt;
         nand-ecc-strength = <4>;
         nand-ecc-step-size = <512>;
     };
};

It produces a lot of bad eraseblocks entrys
[    2.693343] nand: device found, Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xda
[    2.699717] nand: Micron MT29F2G08ABAEAH4
[    2.703772] nand: 256 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, 
OOB size: 64
[    2.714286] Bad block table not found for chip 0
[    2.721509] Bad block table not found for chip 0
[    2.726139] Scanning device for bad blocks
[    2.730583] Bad eraseblock 0 at 0x000000000000
[    2.735365] Bad eraseblock 1 at 0x000000020000
[    2.740145] Bad eraseblock 2 at 0x000000040000
[    2.744934] Bad eraseblock 3 at 0x000000060000
[    2.749714] Bad eraseblock 4 at 0x000000080000

Is my devicetree correct?

Br
/Sean