Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: 32-bit Amlogic (ARM) SoC: kernel BUG in kfree()
To:     Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
CC:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, <mhocko@suse.com>,
        <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <rppt@linux.ibm.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        <linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
References: <CAFBinCBOX8HyY-UocsVQvsnTr4XWXyE9oU+f2xhO1=JU0i_9ow@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190321214401.GC19508@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <CAFBinCA6oK5UhDAt9kva5qRisxr2gxMF26AMK8vC4b1DN5RXrw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5cad2529-8776-687e-58d0-4fb9e2ec59b1@amlogic.com>
 <CAFBinCA=0XSSVmzfTgb4eSiVFr=XRHqLOVFGyK0++XRty6VjnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <32799846-b8f0-758f-32eb-a9ce435e0b79@amlogic.com>
 <CAFBinCDHmuNZxuDf3pe2ij6m8aX2fho7L+B9ZMaMOo28tPZ62Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Liang Yang <liang.yang@amlogic.com>
Message-ID: <79b81748-8508-414f-c08a-c99cb4ae4b2a@amlogic.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Mar 2019 15:44:30 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFBinCDHmuNZxuDf3pe2ij6m8aX2fho7L+B9ZMaMOo28tPZ62Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Martin,

On 2019/3/29 2:03, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> Hi Liang, 
[......]
>> I don't think it is caused by a different NAND type, but i have followed
>> the some test on my GXL platform. we can see the result from the
>> attachment. By the way, i don't find any information about this on meson
>> NFC datasheet, so i will ask our VLSI.
>> Martin, May you reproduce it with the new patch on meson8b platform ? I
>> need a more clear and easier compared log like gxl.txt. Thanks.
> your gxl.txt is great, finally I can also compare my own results with
> something that works for you!
> in my results (see attachment) the "DATA_IN  [256 B, force 8-bit]"
> instructions result in a different info buffer output.
> does this make any sense to you?
> 
I have asked our VLSI designer for explanation or simulation result by 
an e-mail. Thanks.