| Message ID | 98b1ad64-fe10-4ede-3493-f6d4b49ee1d9@sysgo.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 12 January 2017 at 10:35, David Engraf <david.engraf@sysgo.com> wrote: > The CFI entry for sector length must be set to sector length per device. > This is important for boards using multiple devices like the ARM Vexpress > board (width = 4, device-width = 2). > > Linux and u-boots calculate the size ratio by dividing both values: > > size_ratio = info->portwidth / info->chipwidth; > > After that the sector length will be multiplied by the size_ratio, thus the > CFI entry for sector length is doubled. When Linux or u-boot send a sector > erase, they expect to erase the doubled sector length, but QEMU only erases > the board specified sector length. > > This patch fixes the sector length in the CFI table to match the length per > device, equal to blocks_per_device. Thanks for the patch. I haven't checked against the pflash spec yet, but this looks like it's probably the right thing. The only two machines which use a setup with multiple devices (ie which specify device_width to the pflash_cfi01) are vexpress and virt. For all other machines this patch leaves the behaviour unchanged. Q: do we need to have some kind of nasty hack so that pre-2.9 virt still gets the old broken values in the CFI table, for version and migration compatibility? Ccing Drew for an opinion... thanks -- PMM
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:42:41AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 12 January 2017 at 10:35, David Engraf <david.engraf@sysgo.com> wrote: > > The CFI entry for sector length must be set to sector length per device. > > This is important for boards using multiple devices like the ARM Vexpress > > board (width = 4, device-width = 2). > > > > Linux and u-boots calculate the size ratio by dividing both values: > > > > size_ratio = info->portwidth / info->chipwidth; > > > > After that the sector length will be multiplied by the size_ratio, thus the > > CFI entry for sector length is doubled. When Linux or u-boot send a sector > > erase, they expect to erase the doubled sector length, but QEMU only erases > > the board specified sector length. > > > > This patch fixes the sector length in the CFI table to match the length per > > device, equal to blocks_per_device. > > Thanks for the patch. I haven't checked against the pflash spec yet, > but this looks like it's probably the right thing. > > The only two machines which use a setup with multiple devices (ie > which specify device_width to the pflash_cfi01) are vexpress and virt. > For all other machines this patch leaves the behaviour unchanged. > > Q: do we need to have some kind of nasty hack so that pre-2.9 virt > still gets the old broken values in the CFI table, for version and > migration compatibility? Ccing Drew for an opinion... > I'm pretty sure we need the nasty hack, but I'm also Ccing David for his opinion. Thanks, drew
Am 12.01.2017 um 12:36 schrieb Andrew Jones: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:42:41AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 12 January 2017 at 10:35, David Engraf <david.engraf@sysgo.com> wrote: >>> The CFI entry for sector length must be set to sector length per device. >>> This is important for boards using multiple devices like the ARM Vexpress >>> board (width = 4, device-width = 2). >>> >>> Linux and u-boots calculate the size ratio by dividing both values: >>> >>> size_ratio = info->portwidth / info->chipwidth; >>> >>> After that the sector length will be multiplied by the size_ratio, thus the >>> CFI entry for sector length is doubled. When Linux or u-boot send a sector >>> erase, they expect to erase the doubled sector length, but QEMU only erases >>> the board specified sector length. >>> >>> This patch fixes the sector length in the CFI table to match the length per >>> device, equal to blocks_per_device. >> >> Thanks for the patch. I haven't checked against the pflash spec yet, >> but this looks like it's probably the right thing. >> >> The only two machines which use a setup with multiple devices (ie >> which specify device_width to the pflash_cfi01) are vexpress and virt. >> For all other machines this patch leaves the behaviour unchanged. >> >> Q: do we need to have some kind of nasty hack so that pre-2.9 virt >> still gets the old broken values in the CFI table, for version and >> migration compatibility? Ccing Drew for an opinion... >> > > I'm pretty sure we need the nasty hack, but I'm also Ccing David for > his opinion. I can update the patch if you give me some more information about the hack. Some ifdef for older versions? Best regards - David
* Andrew Jones (drjones@redhat.com) wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:42:41AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On 12 January 2017 at 10:35, David Engraf <david.engraf@sysgo.com> wrote: > > > The CFI entry for sector length must be set to sector length per device. > > > This is important for boards using multiple devices like the ARM Vexpress > > > board (width = 4, device-width = 2). > > > > > > Linux and u-boots calculate the size ratio by dividing both values: > > > > > > size_ratio = info->portwidth / info->chipwidth; > > > > > > After that the sector length will be multiplied by the size_ratio, thus the > > > CFI entry for sector length is doubled. When Linux or u-boot send a sector > > > erase, they expect to erase the doubled sector length, but QEMU only erases > > > the board specified sector length. > > > > > > This patch fixes the sector length in the CFI table to match the length per > > > device, equal to blocks_per_device. > > > > Thanks for the patch. I haven't checked against the pflash spec yet, > > but this looks like it's probably the right thing. > > > > The only two machines which use a setup with multiple devices (ie > > which specify device_width to the pflash_cfi01) are vexpress and virt. > > For all other machines this patch leaves the behaviour unchanged. > > > > Q: do we need to have some kind of nasty hack so that pre-2.9 virt > > still gets the old broken values in the CFI table, for version and > > migration compatibility? Ccing Drew for an opinion... > > > > I'm pretty sure we need the nasty hack, but I'm also Ccing David for > his opinion. Hmm I don't understand enough about pflash to understand the change here; but generally if you need to keep something unchanged for older machine types, add a property and then set that property in the compatibility macros. See include/hw/compat.h, I think you'd add the entry to HW_COMPAT_2_8 and follow a simple example like old_msi_addr on intel-hda.c, that should get picked up by aarch, x86, ppc etc versioned machine types. Dave > Thanks, > drew -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
Am 16.01.2017 um 11:26 schrieb Dr. David Alan Gilbert: > * Andrew Jones (drjones@redhat.com) wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:42:41AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 12 January 2017 at 10:35, David Engraf <david.engraf@sysgo.com> wrote: >>>> The CFI entry for sector length must be set to sector length per device. >>>> This is important for boards using multiple devices like the ARM Vexpress >>>> board (width = 4, device-width = 2). >>>> >>>> Linux and u-boots calculate the size ratio by dividing both values: >>>> >>>> size_ratio = info->portwidth / info->chipwidth; >>>> >>>> After that the sector length will be multiplied by the size_ratio, thus the >>>> CFI entry for sector length is doubled. When Linux or u-boot send a sector >>>> erase, they expect to erase the doubled sector length, but QEMU only erases >>>> the board specified sector length. >>>> >>>> This patch fixes the sector length in the CFI table to match the length per >>>> device, equal to blocks_per_device. >>> >>> Thanks for the patch. I haven't checked against the pflash spec yet, >>> but this looks like it's probably the right thing. >>> >>> The only two machines which use a setup with multiple devices (ie >>> which specify device_width to the pflash_cfi01) are vexpress and virt. >>> For all other machines this patch leaves the behaviour unchanged. >>> >>> Q: do we need to have some kind of nasty hack so that pre-2.9 virt >>> still gets the old broken values in the CFI table, for version and >>> migration compatibility? Ccing Drew for an opinion... >>> >> >> I'm pretty sure we need the nasty hack, but I'm also Ccing David for >> his opinion. > > Hmm I don't understand enough about pflash to understand the change here; > but generally if you need to keep something unchanged for older > machine types, add a property and then set that property in > the compatibility macros. > > See include/hw/compat.h, I think you'd add the entry to HW_COMPAT_2_8 > and follow a simple example like old_msi_addr on intel-hda.c, > that should get picked up by aarch, x86, ppc etc versioned machine types. This is a new version of the previous patch including the HW_COMPAT entry. After further tests with u-boot and Linux, I found another problem with the blocks per device and write block size. Blocks per device must not be divided with the number of devices because the resulting device size would not match the overall size. However write block size must be modified depending on the number of devices because the entry is per device and when u-boot writes into the flash it calculates the write size by using the CFI entry (write size per device) multiplied by the number of chips. Here is a configuration example of the vexpress board: VEXPRESS_FLASH_SIZE = 64M VEXPRESS_FLASH_SECT_SIZE 256K num-blocks = VEXPRESS_FLASH_SIZE / VEXPRESS_FLASH_SECT_SIZE = 256 sector-length = 256K width = 4 device-width = 2 The code will fill the CFI entry with the following entries num-blocks = 256 sector-length = 128K writeblock_size = 2048 This results in two chips, each with 256 * 128K = 32M device size and a write block size of 2048. A sector erase will be send to both chips, thus 256K must be erased. When u-boot sends a block write command, it will write 4096 bytes data at once (2048 per device). I did not modify the CFI entry for write block size. Instead I kept the hard coded value of 2048 in the CFI table and fixed the internal entry for writeblock_size. Best regards - David Signed-off-by: David Engraf <david.engraf@sysgo.com>diff --git a/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c b/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c index 5f0ee9d..996daa3 100644 --- a/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c +++ b/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c @@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ struct pflash_t { char *name; void *storage; VMChangeStateEntry *vmstate; + bool old_multiple_chip_handling; }; static int pflash_post_load(void *opaque, int version_id); @@ -703,7 +704,7 @@ static void pflash_cfi01_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) pflash_t *pfl = CFI_PFLASH01(dev); uint64_t total_len; int ret; - uint64_t blocks_per_device, device_len; + uint64_t blocks_per_device, sector_len_per_device, device_len; int num_devices; Error *local_err = NULL; @@ -726,8 +727,14 @@ static void pflash_cfi01_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) * in the cfi_table[]. */ num_devices = pfl->device_width ? (pfl->bank_width / pfl->device_width) : 1; - blocks_per_device = pfl->nb_blocs / num_devices; - device_len = pfl->sector_len * blocks_per_device; + if (pfl->old_multiple_chip_handling) { + blocks_per_device = pfl->nb_blocs / num_devices; + sector_len_per_device = pfl->sector_len; + } else { + blocks_per_device = pfl->nb_blocs; + sector_len_per_device = pfl->sector_len / num_devices; + } + device_len = sector_len_per_device * blocks_per_device; /* XXX: to be fixed */ #if 0 @@ -832,6 +839,8 @@ static void pflash_cfi01_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) pfl->cfi_table[0x2A] = 0x0B; } pfl->writeblock_size = 1 << pfl->cfi_table[0x2A]; + if (!pfl->old_multiple_chip_handling && num_devices > 1) + pfl->writeblock_size *= num_devices; pfl->cfi_table[0x2B] = 0x00; /* Number of erase block regions (uniform) */ @@ -839,8 +848,8 @@ static void pflash_cfi01_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) /* Erase block region 1 */ pfl->cfi_table[0x2D] = blocks_per_device - 1; pfl->cfi_table[0x2E] = (blocks_per_device - 1) >> 8; - pfl->cfi_table[0x2F] = pfl->sector_len >> 8; - pfl->cfi_table[0x30] = pfl->sector_len >> 16; + pfl->cfi_table[0x2F] = sector_len_per_device >> 8; + pfl->cfi_table[0x30] = sector_len_per_device >> 16; /* Extended */ pfl->cfi_table[0x31] = 'P'; @@ -898,6 +907,8 @@ static Property pflash_cfi01_properties[] = { DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("id2", struct pflash_t, ident2, 0), DEFINE_PROP_UINT16("id3", struct pflash_t, ident3, 0), DEFINE_PROP_STRING("name", struct pflash_t, name), + DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("old-multiple-chip-handling", struct pflash_t, + old_multiple_chip_handling, false), DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST(), }; diff --git a/include/hw/compat.h b/include/hw/compat.h index 4fe44d1..cb3c36a 100644 --- a/include/hw/compat.h +++ b/include/hw/compat.h @@ -2,7 +2,11 @@ #define HW_COMPAT_H #define HW_COMPAT_2_8 \ - /* empty */ + {\ + .driver = "pflash_cfi01",\ + .property = "old-multiple-chip-handling",\ + .value = "on",\ + }, #define HW_COMPAT_2_7 \ {\
On 12 January 2017 at 11:36, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:42:41AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> Thanks for the patch. I haven't checked against the pflash spec yet, >> but this looks like it's probably the right thing. >> >> The only two machines which use a setup with multiple devices (ie >> which specify device_width to the pflash_cfi01) are vexpress and virt. >> For all other machines this patch leaves the behaviour unchanged. >> >> Q: do we need to have some kind of nasty hack so that pre-2.9 virt >> still gets the old broken values in the CFI table, for version and >> migration compatibility? Ccing Drew for an opinion... >> > > I'm pretty sure we need the nasty hack, but I'm also Ccing David for > his opinion. So given our decision about not needing the back-compat property for the UEFI table entry, do we still agree that we need one here? thanks -- PMM
On 27 January 2017 at 14:31, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: > On 12 January 2017 at 11:36, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:42:41AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> Thanks for the patch. I haven't checked against the pflash spec yet, >>> but this looks like it's probably the right thing. >>> >>> The only two machines which use a setup with multiple devices (ie >>> which specify device_width to the pflash_cfi01) are vexpress and virt. >>> For all other machines this patch leaves the behaviour unchanged. >>> >>> Q: do we need to have some kind of nasty hack so that pre-2.9 virt >>> still gets the old broken values in the CFI table, for version and >>> migration compatibility? Ccing Drew for an opinion... >>> >> >> I'm pretty sure we need the nasty hack, but I'm also Ccing David for >> his opinion. > > So given our decision about not needing the back-compat property > for the UEFI table entry, do we still agree that we need one here? Looking more closely at the patch, changing writeblock underneath a guest's feet is probably not very polite, so let's take the safe path of making it version-dependent. I've applied David's patch to target-arm.next (with some tweaks to the commit message). thanks -- PMM
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 02:54:20PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 27 January 2017 at 14:31, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 12 January 2017 at 11:36, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:42:41AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > >>> Thanks for the patch. I haven't checked against the pflash spec yet, > >>> but this looks like it's probably the right thing. > >>> > >>> The only two machines which use a setup with multiple devices (ie > >>> which specify device_width to the pflash_cfi01) are vexpress and virt. > >>> For all other machines this patch leaves the behaviour unchanged. > >>> > >>> Q: do we need to have some kind of nasty hack so that pre-2.9 virt > >>> still gets the old broken values in the CFI table, for version and > >>> migration compatibility? Ccing Drew for an opinion... > >>> > >> > >> I'm pretty sure we need the nasty hack, but I'm also Ccing David for > >> his opinion. > > > > So given our decision about not needing the back-compat property > > for the UEFI table entry, do we still agree that we need one here? > > Looking more closely at the patch, changing writeblock underneath > a guest's feet is probably not very polite, so let's take the safe > path of making it version-dependent. Right, and I think ACPI generation is getting a bit of special treatment due to its status as "part of firmware". Hardware should probably never change. > > I've applied David's patch to target-arm.next (with some tweaks to > the commit message). > > thanks > -- PMM Thanks, drew
diff --git a/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c b/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c index 5f0ee9d..8bb61e4 100644 --- a/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c +++ b/hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c @@ -703,7 +703,7 @@ static void pflash_cfi01_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) pflash_t *pfl = CFI_PFLASH01(dev); uint64_t total_len; int ret; - uint64_t blocks_per_device, device_len; + uint64_t blocks_per_device, sector_len_per_device, device_len; int num_devices; Error *local_err = NULL; @@ -727,7 +727,8 @@ static void pflash_cfi01_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) */ num_devices = pfl->device_width ? (pfl->bank_width / pfl->device_width) : 1; blocks_per_device = pfl->nb_blocs / num_devices; - device_len = pfl->sector_len * blocks_per_device; + sector_len_per_device = pfl->sector_len / num_devices; + device_len = sector_len_per_device * blocks_per_device; /* XXX: to be fixed */ #if 0 @@ -839,8 +840,8 @@ static void pflash_cfi01_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) /* Erase block region 1 */ pfl->cfi_table[0x2D] = blocks_per_device - 1; pfl->cfi_table[0x2E] = (blocks_per_device - 1) >> 8; - pfl->cfi_table[0x2F] = pfl->sector_len >> 8; - pfl->cfi_table[0x30] = pfl->sector_len >> 16; + pfl->cfi_table[0x2F] = sector_len_per_device >> 8; + pfl->cfi_table[0x30] = sector_len_per_device >> 16; /* Extended */ pfl->cfi_table[0x31] = 'P';
The CFI entry for sector length must be set to sector length per device. This is important for boards using multiple devices like the ARM Vexpress board (width = 4, device-width = 2). Linux and u-boots calculate the size ratio by dividing both values: size_ratio = info->portwidth / info->chipwidth; After that the sector length will be multiplied by the size_ratio, thus the CFI entry for sector length is doubled. When Linux or u-boot send a sector erase, they expect to erase the doubled sector length, but QEMU only erases the board specified sector length. This patch fixes the sector length in the CFI table to match the length per device, equal to blocks_per_device. Signed-off-by: David Engraf <david.engraf@sysgo.com>