Hi! > > We have some problems with fsl_ifc_nand ... in the old kernels, but > > this one does not seem to be fixed in v4.11, either. > > > > UBIFS complains: > > > > UBIFS error (pid 931): ubifs_scan: corrupt empty space at LEB 282:252630 > > UBIFS error (pid 931): ubifs_scanned_corruption: corruption at LEB 282:252630 > > UBIFS error (pid 931): ubifs_scanned_corruption: first 1322 bytes from LEB 282:252630 > > UBIFS error (pid 931): ubifs_scan: LEB 282 scanning failed > > > > Possible explanation is here: > > > > https://e2e.ti.com/support/dsp/davinci_digital_media_processors/f/716/t/289605 > > > > # I see on the forum that this issue has been raised before - my > > # understanding is that the omap2 nand driver does not perform ECC > > # detection/correction on empty pages so when UBIFS checks the empty > > # space data and doesn't read all 0xFF then it fails and mounts > > # read-only. I didn't find any good solution - only a workaround to > > # remove the UBIFS check.. > > > > So I checked fsl_ifc_nand.c in v4.11-rc, and yes, it seems to have the > > same problem: > > > > if (errors == 15) { > > /* > > * Uncorrectable error. > > * OK only if the whole page is blank. > > * > > * We disable ECCER reporting due to... > > * erratum IFC-A002770 -- so report it now if we > > * see an uncorrectable error in ECCSTAT. > > */ > > if (!is_blank(mtd, bufnum)) > > ctrl->nand_stat |= > > IFC_NAND_EVTER_STAT_ECCER; > > break; > > } > > > > is_blank() checks for all 0xff's, so single-bit 0xfe in the data will > > result in_blank() == 0 and uncorrectable error being signaled. > > > > Should the driver be modified somehow? > > Yep, nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() [1] is here to help you check this > case, unfortunately, it's not directly applicable here, because this > function takes regular pointers and not __iomem ones. You'll either > have to copy the data in an intermediate buffer before calling > nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(), or cast the SRAM region to a void > pointer (which is usually not a good idea). The last option would be to > open code nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk(), but I'd really like to avoid > that (for maintainability concerns). Ok, thanks a lot for the pointer, that should be doable. Core of the code is: 1357 for (; len >= sizeof(long); 1358 len -= sizeof(long), bitmap += sizeof(long)) { 1359 weight = hweight_long(*((unsigned long *)bitmap)); 1360 bitflips += BITS_PER_LONG - weight; 1361 if (unlikely(bitflips > bitflips_threshold)) 1362 return -EBADMSG; 1363 } Someone clearly optimized this code (took care to do long accesses etc), but afaict hweight is quite a heavy operation: _GLOBAL(__arch_hweight32) BEGIN_FTR_SECTION b __sw_hweight32 nop nop nop nop nop nop FTR_SECTION_ELSE BEGIN_FTR_SECTION_NESTED(51) PPC_POPCNTB(R3,R3) srdi r4,r3,16 add r3,r4,r3 srdi r4,r3,8 add r3,r4,r3 clrldi r3,r3,64-8 blr FTR_SECTION_ELSE_NESTED(51) PPC_POPCNTW(R3,R3) clrldi r3,r3,64-8 blr ALT_FTR_SECTION_END_NESTED_IFCLR(CPU_FTR_POPCNTD, 51) ALT_FTR_SECTION_END_IFCLR(CPU_FTR_POPCNTB) EXPORT_SYMBOL(__arch_hweight32) Would it make sense to only do hweight if *bitmap != ~0ULL ? Would it make sense to only check for bitflips > bitflips_threshold each 128 bytes or something like that? Thanks and best regards, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html