| Message ID | 200911172245.nAHMjnss001994@imap1.linux-foundation.org |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, 2009-11-17 at 14:45 -0800, akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote: > From: Li Yang <leoli@freescale.com> > > Symptom: > device_suspend(): mtd_cls_suspend+0x0/0x58 returns -11 > PM: Device mtd14 failed to suspend: error -11 > PM: Some devices failed to suspend > > This patch enables other chips to be suspended if the active chip of > the controller has been suspended. > > Signed-off-by: Jin Qing <b24347@freescale.com> > Signed-off-by: Li Yang <leoli@freescale.com> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> > --- > > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 14 ++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff -puN drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c~mtd-nand-fix-multi-chip-suspend-problem drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c~mtd-nand-fix-multi-chip-suspend-problem > +++ a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > @@ -697,10 +697,16 @@ nand_get_device(struct nand_chip *chip, > spin_unlock(lock); > return 0; > } > - if (new_state == FL_PM_SUSPENDED) { > - spin_unlock(lock); > - return (chip->state == FL_PM_SUSPENDED) ? 0 : -EAGAIN; > - } > + if (new_state == FL_PM_SUSPENDED) > + if (chip->controller->active->state == FL_PM_SUSPENDED) { > + chip->state = FL_PM_SUSPENDED; > + spin_unlock(lock); > + return 0; > + } else { > + spin_unlock(lock); > + return -EAGAIN; > + } > + > set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); > add_wait_queue(wq, &wait); > spin_unlock(lock); This patch casing the following gcc warning: drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c: In function ‘nand_get_device’: drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c:700: warning: suggest explicit braces to avoid ambiguous ‘else’
Hello Artem, This is not a bug report, just an observation on ubiformat. It only seems to take the --erase-counter parameter in certain situations. If you have alien data it seems to take it. If the blocks are FF erased or previously formatted correctly it seems to ignore the --erase-counter argument, even though it says it is using it (see below). Should we add something in the online help or documentation to explain this better and maybe say in the ubiformat tool itself when the switch is getting used or ignored and why? # ./ubiformat /dev/mtd4 -n --erase-counter=1234 -v -y ubiformat: mtd4 (NAND), size 2097152 bytes (2.0 MiB), 524288 eraseblocks of 524288 bytes (512.0 KiB), min. I/O size 4096 bytes libscan: start scanning eraseblocks 0-4 libscan: scanning eraseblock 0: alien libscan: scanning eraseblock 1: alien libscan: scanning eraseblock 2: alien libscan: scanning eraseblock 3: alien libscan: finished, mean EC 0, 0 OK, 0 corrupted, 0 empty, 4 alien, bad 0 ubiformat: warning!: 4 of 4 eraseblocks contain non-ubifs data ubiformat: use erase counter 1234 for all eraseblocks ubiformat: eraseblock 0: erase, write EC 1234 ubiformat: eraseblock 1: erase, write EC 1234 ubiformat: eraseblock 2: erase, write EC 1234 ubiformat: eraseblock 3: erase, write EC 1234 192.168.1.105 # ./ubiformat /dev/mtd4 -n --erase-counter=5432 -v -y ubiformat: mtd4 (NAND), size 2097152 bytes (2.0 MiB), 524288 eraseblocks of 524288 bytes (512.0 KiB), min. I/O size 4096 bytes libscan: start scanning eraseblocks 0-4 libscan: scanning eraseblock 0: OK, erase counter 1234 libscan: scanning eraseblock 1: OK, erase counter 1234 libscan: scanning eraseblock 2: OK, erase counter 1234 libscan: scanning eraseblock 3: OK, erase counter 1234 libscan: finished, mean EC 1234, 4 OK, 0 corrupted, 0 empty, 0 alien, bad 0 ubiformat: 4 eraseblocks have valid erase counter, mean value is 1234 ubiformat: use erase counter 5432 for all eraseblocks <------------------ Didn't take this value ubiformat: eraseblock 0: erase, write EC 1235 ubiformat: eraseblock 1: erase, write EC 1235 ubiformat: eraseblock 2: erase, write EC 1235 ubiformat: eraseblock 3: erase, write EC 1235 Thanks. Regards, Darwin
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:57 -0800, Darwin Rambo wrote: > Hello Artem, > > This is not a bug report, just an observation on ubiformat. It only seems to take the --erase-counter parameter in certain situations. If you have alien data it seems to take it. If the blocks are FF erased or previously formatted correctly it seems to ignore the --erase-counter argument, even though it says it is using it (see below). > > Should we add something in the online help or documentation to explain this better and maybe say in the ubiformat tool itself when the switch is getting used or ignored and why? > > # ./ubiformat /dev/mtd4 -n --erase-counter=1234 -v -y > ubiformat: mtd4 (NAND), size 2097152 bytes (2.0 MiB), 524288 eraseblocks of 524288 bytes (512.0 KiB), min. I/O size 4096 bytes > libscan: start scanning eraseblocks 0-4 > libscan: scanning eraseblock 0: alien > libscan: scanning eraseblock 1: alien > libscan: scanning eraseblock 2: alien > libscan: scanning eraseblock 3: alien > libscan: finished, mean EC 0, 0 OK, 0 corrupted, 0 empty, 4 alien, bad 0 > ubiformat: warning!: 4 of 4 eraseblocks contain non-ubifs data > ubiformat: use erase counter 1234 for all eraseblocks > ubiformat: eraseblock 0: erase, write EC 1234 > ubiformat: eraseblock 1: erase, write EC 1234 > ubiformat: eraseblock 2: erase, write EC 1234 > ubiformat: eraseblock 3: erase, write EC 1234 > 192.168.1.105 # ./ubiformat /dev/mtd4 -n --erase-counter=5432 -v -y > ubiformat: mtd4 (NAND), size 2097152 bytes (2.0 MiB), 524288 eraseblocks of 524288 bytes (512.0 KiB), min. I/O size 4096 bytes > libscan: start scanning eraseblocks 0-4 > libscan: scanning eraseblock 0: OK, erase counter 1234 > libscan: scanning eraseblock 1: OK, erase counter 1234 > libscan: scanning eraseblock 2: OK, erase counter 1234 > libscan: scanning eraseblock 3: OK, erase counter 1234 > libscan: finished, mean EC 1234, 4 OK, 0 corrupted, 0 empty, 0 alien, bad 0 > ubiformat: 4 eraseblocks have valid erase counter, mean value is 1234 > ubiformat: use erase counter 5432 for all eraseblocks <------------------ Didn't take this value > ubiformat: eraseblock 0: erase, write EC 1235 > ubiformat: eraseblock 1: erase, write EC 1235 > ubiformat: eraseblock 2: erase, write EC 1235 > ubiformat: eraseblock 3: erase, write EC 1235 Looks like a bug to me. I think it should take the EC you ask it in all cases. I'll look at this when I have a bit more time, thanks for the report.
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 10:57 -0800, Darwin Rambo wrote: > Hello Artem, > > This is not a bug report, just an observation on ubiformat. It only seems to take the --erase-counter parameter in certain situations. If you have alien data it seems to take it. If the blocks are FF erased or previously formatted correctly it seems to ignore the --erase-counter argument, even though it says it is using it (see below). > > Should we add something in the online help or documentation to explain this better and maybe say in the ubiformat tool itself when the switch is getting used or ignored and why? Should be fixed in the mtd-utils repository now, thanks.
diff -puN drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c~mtd-nand-fix-multi-chip-suspend-problem drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c~mtd-nand-fix-multi-chip-suspend-problem +++ a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c @@ -697,10 +697,16 @@ nand_get_device(struct nand_chip *chip, spin_unlock(lock); return 0; } - if (new_state == FL_PM_SUSPENDED) { - spin_unlock(lock); - return (chip->state == FL_PM_SUSPENDED) ? 0 : -EAGAIN; - } + if (new_state == FL_PM_SUSPENDED) + if (chip->controller->active->state == FL_PM_SUSPENDED) { + chip->state = FL_PM_SUSPENDED; + spin_unlock(lock); + return 0; + } else { + spin_unlock(lock); + return -EAGAIN; + } + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); add_wait_queue(wq, &wait); spin_unlock(lock);