Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: rawnand: brcmnand: Initial exec_op implementation

[William Zhang <william.zhang@broadcom.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4532 bytes --]

Hi Miquel,

On 10/02/2023 05:35 AM, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> dregan@mail.com wrote on Sat, 30 Sep 2023 03:57:35 +0200:
> 
>> Initial exec_op implementation for Broadcom STB, Broadband and iProc SoC
>> This adds exec_op and removes the legacy interface.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Regan <dregan@mail.com>
>> Reviewed-by: William Zhang <william.zhang@broadcom.com>
>>
>> ---
>>
> 
> ...
> 
>> +static int brcmnand_parser_exec_matched_op(struct nand_chip *chip,
>> +					 const struct nand_subop *subop)
>> +{
>> +	struct brcmnand_host *host = nand_get_controller_data(chip);
>> +	struct brcmnand_controller *ctrl = host->ctrl;
>> +	struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip);
>> +	const struct nand_op_instr *instr = &subop->instrs[0];
>> +	unsigned int i;
>> +	int ret = 0;
>> +
>> +	for (i = 0; i < subop->ninstrs; i++) {
>> +		instr = &subop->instrs[i];
>> +
>> +		if ((instr->type == NAND_OP_CMD_INSTR) &&
>> +			(instr->ctx.cmd.opcode == NAND_CMD_STATUS))
>> +			ctrl->status_cmd = 1;
>> +		else if (ctrl->status_cmd && (instr->type == NAND_OP_DATA_IN_INSTR)) {
>> +			/*
>> +			 * need to fake the nand device write protect because nand_base does a
>> +			 * nand_check_wp which calls nand_status_op NAND_CMD_STATUS which checks
>> +			 * that the nand is not write protected before an operation starts.
>> +			 * The problem with this is it's done outside exec_op so the nand is
>> +			 * write protected and this check will fail until the write or erase
>> +			 * or write back operation actually happens where we turn off wp.
>> +			 */
>> +			u8 *in;
>> +
>> +			ctrl->status_cmd = 0;
>> +
>> +			instr = &subop->instrs[i];
>> +			in = instr->ctx.data.buf.in;
>> +			in[0] = brcmnand_status(host) | NAND_STATUS_WP; /* hide WP status */
> 
> I don't understand why you are faking the WP bit. If it's set,
> brcmnand_status() should return it and you should not care about it. If
> it's not however, can you please give me the path used when we have
> this issue? Either we need to modify the core or we need to provide
> additional helpers in this driver to circumvent the faulty path.

The reason we have to hide wp status for status command is because
nand_base calls nand_check_wp at the very beginning of write and erase
function. This applies to both exec_op path and legacy path. With
Broadcom nand controller and most of our board design using the WP pin
and have it asserted by default, the nand_check_wp function will fail
and write/erase aborts.  This workaround has been there before this
exec_op patch.

I agree it is ugly and better to be addressed in the nand base code. And
I understand Broadcom's WP approach may sound a bit over cautious but we
want to make sure no spurious erase/write can happen under any
circumstance except software explicitly want to write and erase.  WP is
standard nand chip pin and I think most the nand controller has that
that pin in the design too but it is possible it is not used and
bootloader can de-assert the pin and have a always-writable nand flash
for linux. So maybe we can add nand controller dts option "nand-use-wp".
If this property exist and set to 1,  wp control is in use and nand
driver need to control the pin on/ff as needed when doing write and
erase function. Also nand base code should not call nand_check_wp when
wp is in use. Then we can remove the faking WP status workaround.

> 
>> +		} else if (instr->type == NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR) {
>> +			ret = bcmnand_ctrl_poll_status(host, NAND_CTRL_RDY, NAND_CTRL_RDY, 0);
>> +			if (ctrl->wp_cmd) {
>> +				ctrl->wp_cmd = 0;
>> +				brcmnand_wp(mtd, 1);
> 
> This ideally should disappear.
> 
Maybe we can have the destructive operation patch from Borris.
Controller driver still need to assert/deassert the pin if it uses nand
wp feature but at least it does not need to guess the op code.

>> +			}
>> +		} else { /* otherwise pass to low level implementation */
>> +			if ((instr->type == NAND_OP_CMD_INSTR) &&
>> +				(instr->ctx.cmd.opcode == NAND_CMD_RESET)) {
>> +				brcmnand_status(host);
>> +				ctrl->status_cmd = 0;
>> +				ctrl->wp_cmd = 0;
>> +				brcmnand_wp(mtd, 1);
> 
> Same
> 
>> +			}
>> +
>> +			if ((instr->type == NAND_OP_CMD_INSTR) &&
>> +				((instr->ctx.cmd.opcode == NAND_CMD_ERASE1) ||
>> +				(instr->ctx.cmd.opcode == NAND_CMD_SEQIN))) {
>> +				brcmnand_wp(mtd, 0);
>> +				ctrl->wp_cmd = 1;
> 
> Same
> 
>> +			}
>> +
>> +			ret = brcmnand_exec_instr(host, instr, i == (subop->ninstrs - 1));
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Miquèl
> 

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4212 bytes --]