Re: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: ingenic: Convert the driver to exec_op()

[Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>]

Le mar. 19 mai 2020 à 17:01, Boris Brezillon 
<boris.brezillon@collabora.com> a écrit :
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 16:52:27 +0200
> Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> wrote:
> 
>>  Hi Boris,
>> 
>>  Le lun. 18 mai 2020 à 21:24, Boris Brezillon
>>  <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> a écrit :
>>  > On Mon, 18 May 2020 19:50:04 +0200
>>  > Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net> wrote:
>>  >
>>  >>  Hi Boris,
>>  >>
>>  >>  Le lun. 18 mai 2020 à 18:56, Boris Brezillon
>>  >>  <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> a écrit :
>>  >>  > Let's convert the driver to exec_op() to have one less driver
>>  >> relying
>>  >>  > on the legacy interface.
>>  >>
>>  >>  Great work, thanks for that.
>>  >>
>>  >>  However it does not work :( nand_scan() returns error -145.
>>  >
>>  > Looks like the R/B signal is inverted. Can you try with the
>>  > following diff applied?
>> 
>>  Still doesn't work properly. I get -ENODEV in nand_detect(), at the
>>  "second ID read did not match..." pr_info().
>> 
>>  The R/B signal doesn't seem to be the primary cause, if I use
>>  nand_soft_waitrdy() it doesn't work any better.
> 
> Well, it does solve the ETIMEDOUT issue, so we're one step further 
> ;-).
> Can you print the returned ID?

It reads 00/00, so it doesn't seem to be able to read any data.

>> 
>>  One thing I noticed that jz4780_nemc_assert() is called with
>>  assert=true unconditionally, while before it was called with (ctrl &
>>  NAND_NCE), whatever that is. Whether or not that's a problem, I 
>> have no
>>  idea.
> 
> Yes, we really want to assert the CE signal unconditionally here, but
> maybe we should add a delay after asserting it/before de-asserting it.

I added some udelay() here and there, unfortunately it didn't change 
anything.

-Paul



______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/