Hello,
Release: Yocto-Sumo (4.14.78_1.0.0_GA)
Board: i.MX8MQ based custom board
We are working on iMX8MQ based custom board and facing issue while reading/writing data on eMMC.
As per some answers available on the community I have modified drive strength in PAD muxing and issue is resolved and able to access memory without any error.
Now, when I hit "fdisk -l" command, I have got the same error only from mmcblk0rpmb partition.
Logs are attached below.
root@imx8mqpicoitx:~#
root@imx8mqpicoitx:~# fdisk -l
Disk /dev/mmcblk0: 29.7 GiB, 31826378752 bytes, 62160896 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disklabel type: dos
Disk identifier: 0xa7959753
Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type
/dev/mmcblk0p1 16384 147455 131072 64M c W95 FAT32 (LBA)
/dev/mmcblk0p2 147456 5046271 4898816 2.3G 83 Linux
[ 66.725570] mmcblk0rpmb: error -110 transferring data, sector 0, nr 8, cmd response 0x900, card status 0xb00
[ 72.284913] mmcblk0rpmb: error -110 transferring data, sector 0, nr 8, cmd response 0x900, card status 0xb00
[ 72.294770] mmcblk0rpmb: retrying using single block read
[ 77.671231] mmcblk0rpmb: error -110 transferring data, sector 8, nr 8, cmd response 0x900, card status 0xb00
[ 77.681087] mmcblk0rpmb: retrying using single block read
Disk /dev/mmcblk0rpmb: 4 MiB, 4194304 bytes, 8192 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk /dev/mmcblk0boot1: 31.5 MiB, 33030144 bytes, 64512 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
Disk /dev/mmcblk0boot0: 31.5 MiB, 33030144 bytes, 64512 sectors
Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
root@imx8mqpicoitx:~#
root@imx8mqpicoitx:~#
root@imx8mqpicoitx:~#
root@imx8mqpicoitx:~# dmesg | grep mmcblk0rpmb
[ 2.025005] mmcblk0rpmb: mmc0:0001 S0J57X partition 3 4.00 MiB
[ 66.725570] mmcblk0rpmb: error -110 transferring data, sector 0, nr 8, cmd response 0x900, card status 0xb00
[ 72.284913] mmcblk0rpmb: error -110 transferring data, sector 0, nr 8, cmd response 0x900, card status 0xb00
[ 72.294770] mmcblk0rpmb: retrying using single block read
[ 77.671231] mmcblk0rpmb: error -110 transferring data, sector 8, nr 8, cmd response 0x900, card status 0xb00
[ 77.681087] mmcblk0rpmb: retrying using single block read
root@imx8mqpicoitx:~#
root@imx8mqpicoitx:~#
Does anyone have any idea for what purpose this mmcblk0rpmb partition is used?
Why this error occurs only from mmcblk0rpmb partition?
Best regards,
Nirmal
Hello NIRMAL,
This is related to low quality of eMMC card, please try with a brand new high quality eMMC card. Also similar error are discuses on generic Linux email list, please check solutions:
[PATCH 2/3] MMC: improve error recovery from command channel errors
mmc: block: change stop errors to info - Patchwork
[LTSI-dev] [PATCH] mmc: block: fix a bug of error handling in Linux MMC driver.
Many mmc cards require a stronger pullup on CMD signal to be recognized. a workaround is to change the Resistor (for SD) from 100K to 10K.
Regards
Hello Bio_TICFSL,
Thanks for your quick response.
We are using new high-quality eMMC from Micron. Can you explain what the high quality means here? This is a JEDEC standard supported memory.
We are using strong pull up that what you suggested, 4.7k, On CMD & Data 0 line.
Do you have any idea for what purpose this mmcblk0rpmb partition is used?
Best regards,
Nirmal
Hello,
No update, so you have chance to try another SD?
Regards
Hello Bio_TICFSL,
We are using non-removable eMMC card. So, it is not possible to try with another card.
Best regards,
Nirmal
Hello Bio_TICFSL,
We observed that this mmblk0rpmb block doesn't have read/write access due to this error is occurred only from that block.
Do you have any idea how to provide read/write access to this block?
Best regards,
Nirmal