Re: [PATCH] spi-nor: Verify written data in paranoid mode

[Csókás Bence]

Hi Richard,

On 2025. 04. 16. 20:41, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "Csókás Bence" <csokas.bence@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > I'm not so sure whether it makes sense at all.
> > > In it's current form, there is no recovery. So anything non-trivial
> > > on top of the MTD will just see an -EIO and has to give up.
> > > E.g. a filesystem will remount read-only.
> >
> > In our case, we use UBIFS on top of UBI, which in this case chooses
> > another eraseblock to hold the data instead, then re-tests (erase+write
> > cycles) the one which gave -EIO. Since the bus error is only transient,
> > it goes away by this time, and thus UBIFS will recover from this cleanly.
>
> Are you sure about that?
>
> I'd expect UBI to go into RO mode via a call path like:
> ubi_eba_write_leb() -> ubi_io_write() -> mtd_write()
> If mtd_write() returns an EIO, UBI will go into RO mode immediately.
>
> (I'm assuming, your SPI-NOR has no bad block support, so ubi->bad_allowed
> is false).

You are right, in our case we had to patch bad_allowed to be true. But 
the point is, that UBIFS _does_ get notified, and it _does_ go into RO 
mode, instead of getting success from mtd_write(), even though the 
written data was corrupted.

On 2025. 04. 16. 14:38, Csókás Bence wrote:
> We _could_ make it MTD-wide, in our case we only have a NOR Flash
> onboard so this is where we added it. If it were in the MTD core, where
> would it make sense?
>
> * mtd_write()
> * mtd_write_oob()
> * mtd_write_oob_std()
> * or somewhere else entirely?

I'm now starting to think mtd_write_oob() would be the right place for 
it. Thoughts?

Bence