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> <CAFBinCCSkVGp_iWKf=o=7UGuDUWxyLPGdrqGy_P-HPuEJiU1zQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <8cb108ff-7a72-6db4-660d-33880fcee08a@amlogic.com> <CAFBinCD4cRGbC=cFYEGVAHOtBSvrgNbCSfDWe3To0KCE5+ceVw@mail.gmail.com>
 <45ce172c-5c76-bb69-31c8-af91e8ffdd68@amlogic.com>
In-Reply-To: <45ce172c-5c76-bb69-31c8-af91e8ffdd68@amlogic.com>
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Date:   Sat, 8 Jun 2019 22:00:31 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFBinCDWaDoRbbG+5B=27MNRTcekbooEdgAZv5kyS+Xu6M7Bzg@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 Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:00 AM Liang Yang <liang.yang@amlogic.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
> On 2019/4/11 1:54, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> > Hi Liang,
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 1:08 PM Liang Yang <liang.yang@amlogic.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> On 2019/4/5 12:30, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> >>> 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?
> >> Sorry. I haven't got reply from VLSI designer yet. We tried to improve
> >> priority yesterday, but i still can't estimate the time. There is no
> >> document or change list showing the difference between m8/b and gxl/axg
> >> serial chips. Now it seems that we can't use command NFC_CMD_N2M on nand
> >> initialization for m8/b chips and use *read byte from NFC fifo register*
> >> instead.
> > thank you for the status update!
> >
> > I am trying to understand your suggestion not to use NFC_CMD_N2M:
> > the documentation (public S922X datasheet from Hardkernel: [0]) states
> > that P_NAND_BUF (NFC_REG_BUF in the meson_nand driver) can hold up to
> > four bytes of data. is this the "read byte from NFC FIFO register" you
> > mentioned?
> >
> You are right.take the early meson NFC driver V2 on previous mail as a
> reference.
>
> > Before I spend time changing the code to use the FIFO register I would
> > like to wait for an answer from your VLSI designer.
> > Setting the "correct" info buffer length for NFC_CMD_N2M on the 32-bit
> > SoCs seems like an easier solution compared to switching to the FIFO
> > register. Keeping NFC_CMD_N2M on the 32-bit SoCs also allows us to
> > have only one code-path for 32 and 64 bit SoCs, meaning we don't have
> > to maintain two separate code-paths for basically the same
> > functionality (assuming that NFC_CMD_N2M is not completely broken on
> > the 32-bit SoCs, we just don't know how to use it yet).
> >
> All right. I am also waiting for the answer.
do you have any update on this?


Martin