On Tue, Jul 31 2018, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 11:05:11 +1000 > NeilBrown wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 27 2018, Boris Brezillon wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:33:13 -0700 >> > Brian Norris wrote: >> > >> >> Commit 59b356ffd0b0 ("mtd: m25p80: restore the status of SPI flash when >> >> exiting") is the latest from a long history of attempts to add reboot >> >> handling to handle stateful addressing modes on SPI flash. Some prior >> >> mostly-related discussions: >> >> >> >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2013-March/046343.html >> >> [PATCH 1/3] mtd: m25p80: utilize dedicated 4-byte addressing commands >> >> >> >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/barebox/2014-September/020682.html >> >> [RFC] MTD m25p80 3-byte addressing and boot problem >> >> >> >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-February/057683.html >> >> [PATCH 2/2] m25p80: if supported put chip to deep power down if not used >> >> >> >> Previously, attempts to add reboot-time software reset handling were >> >> rejected, but the latest attempt was not. >> >> >> >> Quick summary of the problem: >> >> Some systems (e.g., boot ROM or bootloader) assume that they can read >> >> initial boot code from their SPI flash using 3-byte addressing. If the >> >> flash is left in 4-byte mode after reset, these systems won't boot. The >> >> above patch provided a shutdown/remove hook to attempt to reset the >> >> addressing mode before we reboot. Notably, this patch misses out on >> >> huge classes of unexpected reboots (e.g., crashes, watchdog resets). >> >> >> >> Unfortunately, it is essentially impossible to solve this problem 100%: >> >> if your system doesn't know how to reset the SPI flash to power-on >> >> defaults at initialization time, no amount of software can really rescue >> >> you -- there will always be a chance of some unexpected reset that >> >> leaves your flash in an addressing mode that your boot sequence didn't >> >> expect. >> >> >> >> While it is not directly harmful to perform hacks like the >> >> aforementioned commit on all 4-byte addressing flash, a >> >> properly-designed system should not need the hack -- and in fact, >> >> providing this hack may mask the fact that a given system is indeed >> >> broken. So this patch attempts to apply this unsound hack more narrowly, >> >> providing a strong suggestion to developers and system designers that >> >> this is truly a hack. With luck, system designers can catch their errors >> >> early on in their development cycle, rather than applying this hack long >> >> term. But apparently enough systems are out in the wild that we still >> >> have to provide this hack. >> >> >> >> Document a new device tree property to denote systems that do not have a >> >> proper hardware (or software) reset mechanism, and apply the hack (with >> >> a loud warning) only in this case. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris >> >> --- >> >> Note that I intentionall didn't split the documentation patch. It seems >> >> clearer to do these together IMO, but if it's *really* important to >> >> someone...I can resend >> > >> > I'm fine with that. >> > >> > I'll leave Neil some time to review/test/comment on the patch before >> > queuing it, but it looks good to me. >> >> Thanks. >> I can confirm that if I apply this patch, my system won't reboot >> properly (as expected), and if I then add >> >> broken-flash-reset; >> >> to the jedec,spi-nor device, it starts functioning correctly again. >> >> I don't like the pejorative "broken", and it also suggests that a thing >> used to work, but something happened to break it - this is not >> accurate. >> I would prefer something like "reset-not-connected" which is an accurate >> description of the state of the hardware. >> >> I also think that having a WARN_ON is an over-reaction. Certainly a >> warning could be appropriate, but just one pr_warn() should be enough. >> The "problem" is unlikely in practice, and loudly warning people that an >> asteroid might kill them isn't particularly helpful. >> >> I genuinely think that if the system fails to reboot, then Linux is at >> fault. I accept that changing Linux to be completely robust might be >> more trouble than it is worth, but I don't accept that it is impossible. >> >> But I don't intend to fight either of these battles. > > Does that mean you're accepting this change? Brian, any comment on what > Neil said? I don't see that it is my place to accept or reject the change. I don't particularly like it, but I hope to never look at this code against so you shouldn't put to much weight on what I like. > > To be honest, I hate being in the middle of this discussion without > having been involved in the first decision to accept such workarounds. > I keep thinking that making boards that do not have reset properly > wired less likely to fail rebooting is a wise decision, but I also > agree with Brian when he says we should inform people that their design > is unreliable. > The main problem I see here, is that adding this prop won't help people > figuring out what is wrong with their design, it will just help them > workaround the problem when they find out, and it might already be to > late to fix the HW design. But maybe it's not what we're trying to do > here. Maybe we just want to warn users that rebooting such boards is a > risky procedure. Simply rebooting the board is not a risky procedure. The risk is that if something causes Linux to "crash", it may not reboot properly. Thanks, NeilBrown