[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#818598: src:linux: MTD device probe failed after migrating kernel variant from -orion5x to -marvell



Package: src:linux
Version: 4.4.6-1
Severity: normal
Control: notfound -1 4.4-1~exp1
Control: found -1 4.4.1-1~exp1
X-Debbugs-Cc: rogershimizu@gmail.com

Dear Maintainer,

I found my orion5x based Linkstation started to fail probing MTD
device, which stores u-boot binary and environment, after variant
migration from -orion5x to -marvell.

Kernel log with version info is like the following:

Linux LS-GL 4.4.0-trunk-orion5x #1 Debian 4.4-1~exp1 (2016-01-19)
armv5tel GNU/Linux
====
[    1.838495] Found: SST 39LF020
[    1.841662] f4000000.flash: Found 1 x8 devices at 0x0 in 8-bit bank
[    1.847985] number of JEDEC chips: 1
[    1.868437] 3 ofpart partitions found on MTD device f4000000.flash
[    1.874705] Creating 3 MTD partitions on "f4000000.flash":
[    1.880288] 0x000000000000-0x000000030000 : "header"
[    1.888806] 0x000000030000-0x00000003f000 : "uboot"
[    1.897299] 0x00000003f000-0x000000040000 : "uboot_env"
====


Linux LS-GL 4.4.0-trunk-marvell #1 Debian 4.4.1-1~exp1 (2016-02-10)
armv5tel GNU/Linux
====
[    1.716090] Found: SST 39LF020
[    1.719184] f4000000.flash: Found 1 x8 devices at 0x0 in 8-bit bank
[    1.742133] Support for command set 0002 not present
[    1.747188] gen_probe: No supported Vendor Command Set found
[    1.752919] of-flash f4000000.flash: do_map_probe() failed for type
jedec_probe
[    1.771450] of-flash f4000000.flash: do_map_probe() failed
====

I uses the same DTB, which ships with latest sid kernel, to do previous test.
(I put the DTB in /etc/flash-kernel/dtbs/)
It with the patches I applied:
- https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/kernel/linux.git/tree/debian/patches/features/arm/device-tree?h=sid

I also checked the diff of kernel config for the two kernels, but found no clue.
And, the kirkwood based Linkstation doesn't have this issue.

Cheers,
-- 
Roger Shimizu, GMT +9 Tokyo
PGP/GPG: 17B3ACB1


Reply to: