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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <79b81748-8508-414f-c08a-c99cb4ae4b2a@amlogic.com>
In-Reply-To: <79b81748-8508-414f-c08a-c99cb4ae4b2a@amlogic.com>
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Apr 2019 06:30:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFBinCCSkVGp_iWKf=o=7UGuDUWxyLPGdrqGy_P-HPuEJiU1zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 32-bit Amlogic (ARM) SoC: kernel BUG in kfree()
To:     Liang Yang <liang.yang@amlogic.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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Liang,

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:44 AM Liang Yang <liang.yang@amlogic.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
do you have any update on this?


Martin