bcm63xx kernel 5.10

[Florian Fainelli]

On 2/4/2022 2:57 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/4/2022 2:50 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/4/2022 2:45 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/4/2022 2:34 PM, Daniel González Cabanelas wrote:
>>>> El vie, 4 feb 2022 a las 23:02, Florian Fainelli
>>>> (<f.fainelli at gmail.com>) escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/4/2022 11:21 AM, Álvaro Fernández Rojas wrote:
>>>>>> So the problem is that SET_FEATURES and GET_FEATURES isn’t 
>>>>>> supported by versions 2.1, 2.2 and 4.0 of the nand controller, 
>>>>>> which are the ones present on bcm63xx, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I suspect this is the problem since I do not see CMD_LOW_LEVEL_OP
>>>>> being defined in the register database for the controllers v2.1 and
>>>>> v2.2, v3.3. Staring with v4.0, the controllers do have the
>>>>> CMD_LOW_LEVEL_OP. This is the version/feature table that I could
>>>>> programmatically compile:
>>>>>
>>>>> version: 0.1, ll: no
>>>>> version: 1.0, ll: no
>>>>> version: 2.0, ll: no
>>>>> version: 2.1, ll: no
>>>>> version: 2.2, ll: no
>>>>> version: 3.0, ll: no
>>>>> version: 3.2, ll: no
>>>>> version: 3.3, ll: no
>>>>> version: 3.4, ll: no
>>>>> version: 4.0, ll: yes
>>>>> version: 5.0, ll: yes
>>>>> version: 6.0, ll: yes
>>>>> version: 6.2, ll: yes
>>>>> version: 7.0, ll: yes
>>>>> version: 7.1, ll: yes
>>>>> version: 7.2, ll: yes
>>>>> version: 7.3, ll: yes
>>>>>
>>>>> How about this patch, does it work better?
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
>>>>> b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
>>>>> index f75929783b94..06ac593beec0 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
>>>>> @@ -1727,6 +1727,8 @@ static void brcmnand_cmdfunc(struct nand_chip
>>>>> *chip, unsigned command,
>>>>>                   break;
>>>>>           case NAND_CMD_SET_FEATURES:
>>>>>           case NAND_CMD_GET_FEATURES:
>>>>> +               if (ctrl->nand_version < 0x0400)
>>>>> +                       break;
>>>>>                   brcmnand_low_level_op(host, LL_OP_CMD, command, 
>>>>> false);
>>>>>                   brcmnand_low_level_op(host, LL_OP_ADDR, column, 
>>>>> false);
>>>>>                   break;
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Florian
>>>>
>>>> No, it didn't help:
>>>
>>> OK, last tentative and then I think you should report this to 
>>> linux-mtd such that the MTD maintainers may suggest whether we are 
>>> missing something obvious here:
>>
>> scratch that, can you try this instead:
> 
> And also try this patch because I don't believe there is sufficient 
> protection in macronix_nand_block_protection_support to ensure that the 
> NAND chip is ONFI capable:

Could you try this patch?

> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c 
> b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c
> index 1472f925f386..78f893add636 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_macronix.c
> @@ -219,9 +219,13 @@ static int mxic_nand_unlock(struct nand_chip *chip, 
> loff_t ofs, uint64_t len)
> 
>   static void macronix_nand_block_protection_support(struct nand_chip 
> *chip)
>   {
> +       struct nand_parameters *p = &chip->parameters;
>          u8 feature[ONFI_SUBFEATURE_PARAM_LEN];
>          int ret;
> 
> +       if (!p->onfi || !chip->parameters.supports_set_get_features)
> +               return;
> +
>          bitmap_set(chip->parameters.get_feature_list,
>                     ONFI_FEATURE_ADDR_MXIC_PROTECTION, 1);
> 
> Thanks!

-- 
Florian