| Message ID | 1287498263-5561-1-git-send-email-phdm@macqel.be |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:24 +0200, Philippe De Muyter wrote: > Some flash chips have a small but annoying bug, documented in > "Numonyx Axcell P33/P30 256-Mbit Specification Update" > > It states : > When customer uses [...] block unlock, the block lock status might > be altered inadvertently. Lock status might be set to either 01h > or 03h unexpectedly (00h as expected data), which leads to > program/erase failure on certain blocks. > > A workaround is given, (summary : issue a "Read Lock Status" before > the "Lock" or "Unlock" command) which I have applied and tested > with success. > > Signed-off-by: Philippe De Muyter <phdm@macqel.be> Is this Numonyx-specific issue? Should there be some kind of "if (numonyx)" statement? May be Nicolas could validate the patch? > --- > drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c > index 9e2b7e9..0d0ae41 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c > @@ -2047,6 +2047,7 @@ static int __xipram do_xxlock_oneblock(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip > { > struct cfi_private *cfi = map->fldrv_priv; > struct cfi_pri_intelext *extp = cfi->cmdset_priv; > + int ofs_factor = cfi->interleave * cfi->device_type; > int udelay; > int ret; > > @@ -2062,6 +2063,14 @@ static int __xipram do_xxlock_oneblock(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip > ENABLE_VPP(map); > xip_disable(map, chip, adr); > > + /* > + * Issue a "Read Lock Status" before the "Lock" or "Unlock" : > + * see errata "Numonyx Axcell P33/P30 Specification Update" :) > + */ > + map_write(map, CMD(0x90), adr+(2*ofs_factor)); > + chip->state = FL_JEDEC_QUERY; > + cfi_read_query(map, adr+(2*ofs_factor)); > + > map_write(map, CMD(0x60), adr); > if (thunk == DO_XXLOCK_ONEBLOCK_LOCK) { > map_write(map, CMD(0x01), adr);
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:39:58AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:24 +0200, Philippe De Muyter wrote: > > Some flash chips have a small but annoying bug, documented in > > "Numonyx Axcell P33/P30 256-Mbit Specification Update" > > > > It states : > > When customer uses [...] block unlock, the block lock status might > > be altered inadvertently. Lock status might be set to either 01h > > or 03h unexpectedly (00h as expected data), which leads to > > program/erase failure on certain blocks. > > > > A workaround is given, (summary : issue a "Read Lock Status" before > > the "Lock" or "Unlock" command) which I have applied and tested > > with success. > > > > Signed-off-by: Philippe De Muyter <phdm@macqel.be> > > Is this Numonyx-specific issue? Should there be some kind of "if > (numonyx)" statement? This is clearly a bug specific to some Numonyx flashes. My chips have Manufacturer ID: 0x89, Device ID: 0x881B, but there are other chips in the same family. The errata http://www.numonyx.com/Documents/Specification%20Updates/509003_P3X_65nm_3V_256Mbit_Discrete.pdf does not list the ManufacturerIDs/DeviceIDs of the affected chips. Philippe
On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 11:33 +0200, Philippe De Muyter wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:39:58AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:24 +0200, Philippe De Muyter wrote: > > > Some flash chips have a small but annoying bug, documented in > > > "Numonyx Axcell P33/P30 256-Mbit Specification Update" > > > > > > It states : > > > When customer uses [...] block unlock, the block lock status might > > > be altered inadvertently. Lock status might be set to either 01h > > > or 03h unexpectedly (00h as expected data), which leads to > > > program/erase failure on certain blocks. > > > > > > A workaround is given, (summary : issue a "Read Lock Status" before > > > the "Lock" or "Unlock" command) which I have applied and tested > > > with success. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Philippe De Muyter <phdm@macqel.be> > > > > Is this Numonyx-specific issue? Should there be some kind of "if > > (numonyx)" statement? > > This is clearly a bug specific to some Numonyx flashes. > My chips have Manufacturer ID: 0x89, Device ID: 0x881B, but there are > other chips in the same family. The errata > http://www.numonyx.com/Documents/Specification%20Updates/509003_P3X_65nm_3V_256Mbit_Discrete.pdf does not list the ManufacturerIDs/DeviceIDs of the affected > chips. CCed Nicolas correctly. Anyway, if this affects only subset of chips, it make sense to make this quirk conditional, because this might affect boot speed, e.g., if some systems unlock all blocks on boot-up. Nicolas, the original patch was here, would you validate it please? http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2010-October/032783.html
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 11:33 +0200, Philippe De Muyter wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:39:58AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:24 +0200, Philippe De Muyter wrote: > > > > Some flash chips have a small but annoying bug, documented in > > > > "Numonyx Axcell P33/P30 256-Mbit Specification Update" > > > > > > > > It states : > > > > When customer uses [...] block unlock, the block lock status might > > > > be altered inadvertently. Lock status might be set to either 01h > > > > or 03h unexpectedly (00h as expected data), which leads to > > > > program/erase failure on certain blocks. > > > > > > > > A workaround is given, (summary : issue a "Read Lock Status" before > > > > the "Lock" or "Unlock" command) which I have applied and tested > > > > with success. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Philippe De Muyter <phdm@macqel.be> > > > > > > Is this Numonyx-specific issue? Should there be some kind of "if > > > (numonyx)" statement? > > > > This is clearly a bug specific to some Numonyx flashes. > > My chips have Manufacturer ID: 0x89, Device ID: 0x881B, but there are > > other chips in the same family. The errata > > http://www.numonyx.com/Documents/Specification%20Updates/509003_P3X_65nm_3V_256Mbit_Discrete.pdf does not list the ManufacturerIDs/DeviceIDs of the affected > > chips. > > CCed Nicolas correctly. > > Anyway, if this affects only subset of chips, it make sense to make this > quirk conditional, because this might affect boot speed, e.g., if some > systems unlock all blocks on boot-up. That is probably quite unlikely to make a difference given that there is no result delay involved. However, does the erratum workaround imply that the status actually has to be read? In other words, can you simply issue CMD 90 without calling cfi_read_query()? Nicolas
Hello Nicolas, On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:32:02PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 11:33 +0200, Philippe De Muyter wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:39:58AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:24 +0200, Philippe De Muyter wrote: > > > > > Some flash chips have a small but annoying bug, documented in > > > > > "Numonyx Axcell P33/P30 256-Mbit Specification Update" > > > > > > > > > > It states : > > > > > When customer uses [...] block unlock, the block lock status might > > > > > be altered inadvertently. Lock status might be set to either 01h > > > > > or 03h unexpectedly (00h as expected data), which leads to > > > > > program/erase failure on certain blocks. > > > > > > > > > > A workaround is given, (summary : issue a "Read Lock Status" before > > > > > the "Lock" or "Unlock" command) which I have applied and tested > > > > > with success. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Philippe De Muyter <phdm@macqel.be> > > > > > > > > Is this Numonyx-specific issue? Should there be some kind of "if > > > > (numonyx)" statement? > > > > > > This is clearly a bug specific to some Numonyx flashes. > > > My chips have Manufacturer ID: 0x89, Device ID: 0x881B, but there are > > > other chips in the same family. The errata > > > http://www.numonyx.com/Documents/Specification%20Updates/509003_P3X_65nm_3V_256Mbit_Discrete.pdf does not list the ManufacturerIDs/DeviceIDs of the affected > > > chips. > > > > CCed Nicolas correctly. > > > > Anyway, if this affects only subset of chips, it make sense to make this > > quirk conditional, because this might affect boot speed, e.g., if some > > systems unlock all blocks on boot-up. > > That is probably quite unlikely to make a difference given that there is > no result delay involved. > > However, does the erratum workaround imply that the status actually has > to be read? In other words, can you simply issue CMD 90 without calling > cfi_read_query()? Here is the relevant excerpt of the errata : Workaround: If the interval between 60h and its subsequent command can be guaranteed within 20us, Option I is recommended, otherwise Option II (involves hardware) should be selected. Option I: The table below lists the detail command sequences: Command Data bus Address bus Remarks Sequence 1 90h Block Address Read Lock Status 2 Read Block Address + 02h (2)(3) (1) 3 60h Block Address (2)(3) (1) Lock/Unlock/RCR Configuration 4 D0h/01h/03h Block Address Notes: (1) Block Address refers to RCR configuration data only when the 60h command sequence is used to set RCR register combined with 03h subsequent command. (2) For the third and fourth command sequences, the Block Address must be the same. (3) The interval between 60h command and its subsequent D0h/01h/2Fh/03h commands should be less than 20us. Philippe
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c index 9e2b7e9..0d0ae41 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c @@ -2047,6 +2047,7 @@ static int __xipram do_xxlock_oneblock(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip { struct cfi_private *cfi = map->fldrv_priv; struct cfi_pri_intelext *extp = cfi->cmdset_priv; + int ofs_factor = cfi->interleave * cfi->device_type; int udelay; int ret; @@ -2062,6 +2063,14 @@ static int __xipram do_xxlock_oneblock(struct map_info *map, struct flchip *chip ENABLE_VPP(map); xip_disable(map, chip, adr); + /* + * Issue a "Read Lock Status" before the "Lock" or "Unlock" : + * see errata "Numonyx Axcell P33/P30 Specification Update" :) + */ + map_write(map, CMD(0x90), adr+(2*ofs_factor)); + chip->state = FL_JEDEC_QUERY; + cfi_read_query(map, adr+(2*ofs_factor)); + map_write(map, CMD(0x60), adr); if (thunk == DO_XXLOCK_ONEBLOCK_LOCK) { map_write(map, CMD(0x01), adr);
Some flash chips have a small but annoying bug, documented in "Numonyx Axcell P33/P30 256-Mbit Specification Update" It states : When customer uses [...] block unlock, the block lock status might be altered inadvertently. Lock status might be set to either 01h or 03h unexpectedly (00h as expected data), which leads to program/erase failure on certain blocks. A workaround is given, (summary : issue a "Read Lock Status" before the "Lock" or "Unlock" command) which I have applied and tested with success. Signed-off-by: Philippe De Muyter <phdm@macqel.be> --- drivers/mtd/chips/cfi_cmdset_0001.c | 9 +++++++++ 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)