Hello,

On 12 January 2015 at 17:59, Vladimir Komendantskiy
<komendant...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> Thanks for your patch. I tested it, arriving at the same result as before
> (with mainline 3.19) except for your version is set to ignore real bad
> blocks, which I hope was a temporary solution. I'm attaching the beginning

Since Allwinner code overwrites the bad block marks when formatting
the nand and there is no way to recover them there is no point looking
at them unless you have a custom made device on which the Chinese
never used the livesuit.

> of the kernel panic dump. The NULL pointer happens during parsing the
> partition table in the DT as a result of adding a NAND partition.
>
> I noticed that the driver calls nand_add_partition even if there are no
> partitions in the DT. Is this driver behaviour consistent?

I am not sure this is intended. However, bootable nand needs to have
partitions so it is possibly untested to boot with unpartitioned nand.

>
> dump:
>
> [   27.696237] Ignoring bad block marker at at 0x0001f23fc000.
> [   27.982825] Bad block table written to 0x0001ffc00000, version 0x01
> [   28.000800] Bad block table written to 0x0001ff800000, version 0x01
> [   28.008443] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual
> address 00000713
> [   28.016602] pgd = c0004000
> [   28.019309] [00000713] *pgd=00000000
> [   28.022921] Internal error: Oops: 17 [#1] SMP ARM
> [   28.027621] Modules linked in: sunxi_nand(+) ofnandpart nand nand_ids
> nand_hynix mtd nand_ecc
> [   28.036242] CPU: 0 PID: 70 Comm: kworker/u2:0 Not tainted
> 3.19.0-rc3-00472-ge238956-dirty #16
> [   28.044753] Hardware name: Allwinner A1X (Device Tree)
> [   28.049886] task: df66ed00 ti: dec5c000 task.ti: dec5c000
> [   28.055290] PC is at kmem_cache_alloc+0x48/0x16c
> [   28.059911] LR is at getname_kernel+0x40/0x80

I have this flash type:
4096 MiB, MLC, erase size: 1024 KiB, page size: 8192, OOB size: 640

Since the partitions have to be in whole eraseblocks they should be at
least 4M in size which seems to be the case. If so they should also
have same number of data blocks so the bootloader should be happy.

However, your partition specification is different from what I have in the DT:

                        nand@0 {
                                #address-cells = <2>;
                                #size-cells = <2>;
                                reg = <0>;
                                allwinner,rb = <0>;

                                nand-ecc-mode = "hw";
                                nand-rnd-mode = "hw";
                                nand-on-flash-bbt;

                                boot0@0 {
                                        label = "boot0";
                                        reg = /bits/ 64 <0x0 0x200000>;
                                        nand-ecc-mode = "hw_syndrome";
                                        nand-rnd-mode = "hw";
                                        nand-randomizer-seeds = /bits/
16 <0x4a80>;
                                };

                                boot0-rescue@200000 {
                                        label = "boot0-rescue";
                                        reg = /bits/ 64 <0x200000 0x200000>;
                                        nand-ecc-mode = "hw_syndrome";
                                        nand-rnd-mode = "hw";
                                        nand-randomizer-seeds = /bits/
16 <0x4a80>;
                                };

                                main@200000 {
                                        label = "main";
                                        reg = /bits/ 64 <0x400000 0xffc00000>;
                                        nand-ecc-mode = "hw";
                                        nand-rnd-mode = "hw";
                                        nand-randomizer-seeds = /bits/ 16 <
                                                0x2b75 0x0bd0 0x5ca3
0x62d1 0x1c93 0x07e9 0x2162 0x3a72
                                                0x0d67 0x67f9 0x1be7
0x077d 0x032f 0x0dac 0x2716 0x2436
                                                0x7922 0x1510 0x3860
0x5287 0x480f 0x4252 0x1789 0x5a2d
                                                0x2a49 0x5e10 0x437f
0x4b4e 0x2f45 0x216e 0x5cb7 0x7130
                                                0x2a3f 0x60e4 0x4dc9
0x0ef0 0x0f52 0x1bb9 0x6211 0x7a56
                                                0x226d 0x4ea7 0x6f36
0x3692 0x38bf 0x0c62 0x05eb 0x4c55
                                                0x60f4 0x728c 0x3b6f
0x2037 0x7f69 0x0936 0x651a 0x4ceb
                                                0x6218 0x79f3 0x383f
0x18d9 0x4f05 0x5c82 0x2912 0x6f17
                                                0x6856 0x5938 0x1007
0x61ab 0x3e7f 0x57c2 0x542f 0x4f62
                                                0x7454 0x2eac 0x7739
0x42d4 0x2f90 0x435a 0x2e52 0x2064
                                                0x637c 0x66ad 0x2c90
0x0bad 0x759c 0x0029 0x0986 0x7126
                                                0x1ca7 0x1605 0x386a
0x27f5 0x1380 0x6d75 0x24c3 0x0f8e
                                                0x2b7a 0x1418 0x1fd1
0x7dc1 0x2d8e 0x43af 0x2267 0x7da3
                                                0x4e3d 0x1338 0x50db
0x454d 0x764d 0x40a3 0x42e6 0x262b
                                                0x2d2e 0x1aea 0x2e17
0x173d 0x3a6e 0x71bf 0x25f9 0x0a5d
                                                0x7c57 0x0fbe 0x46ce
0x4939 0x6b17 0x37bb 0x3e91 0x76db>;
                                };
                        };
                };

I did not read the format of this table and just copied it but it
looks like you are specifying partition size of 0 which would
obviously cause the code to fail one way or another.

Thanks

Michal

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to