Peter Suh Posted July 26, 2023 Share #1 Posted July 26, 2023 @pocopico, @wjz304 Since the release of 7.2-64570 U2 a few days ago, M.2 NVMe unrecognition has been observed on the Device-Tree Base platform. Because TCRP and ARPL go through a similar dtb patch process, the result is the same. Both loaders don't seem to work. Currently, it seems that all scripts of the disks addon started by the ARC developer are unified. Yesterday, only the dtb patch part of the disks add-on script of ARC was extracted and applied to M SHELL. https://github.com/PeterSuh-Q3/tcrp-addons/blob/main/dtbpatch/releases/install.sh ARC, ARPL-i18n, TCRP by pocopico, MSHELL for TCRP Same situation for all 4 modules. It has been confirmed that there is no cache disappearing phenomenon in genuine DS920+. Even if you analyze the model.dtb file, changes since 64570 U1 are not confirmed in model.dtb for U2. synoinfo.conf doesn't seem to have anything special either, This part will be checked again by acquiring files from genuine DS920+ users. Did you start checking the manufacturer's compatibility of M.2 SDD from the U2 version? I think we should think about it together. The model.dtb file below is the contents extracted from ARPL-i18n. The nvme0n1 device is being identified. root@ARPL_VM:~# curl -kLO https://raw.githubusercontent.com/pocopico/tinycore-redpill/master/tools/dtc; chmod +x dtc root@ARPL_VM:~# ./dtc -I dtb -O dts /etc.defaults/model.dtb > /etc.defaults/model.dts; cat /etc.defaults/model.dts <stdout>: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /internal_slot@1: node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property <stdout>: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /internal_slot@2: node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property <stdout>: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /nvme_slot@1: node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property /dts-v1/; / { compatible = "Synology"; model = "synology_geminilake_920+"; version = <0x01>; internal_slot@1 { protocol_type = "sata"; ahci { pcie_root = "00:11.0,04.0"; ata_port = <0x00>; }; }; internal_slot@2 { protocol_type = "sata"; ahci { pcie_root = "00:11.0,04.0"; ata_port = <0x02>; }; }; nvme_slot@1 { pcie_root = "00:15.0,00.0"; port_type = "ssdcache"; }; }; root@ARPL_VM:~# ./dtc -I dtb -O dts /etc/model.dtb > /etc/model.dts; cat /etc.defaults/model.dts <stdout>: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /internal_slot@1: node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property <stdout>: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /internal_slot@2: node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property <stdout>: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /nvme_slot@1: node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property /dts-v1/; / { compatible = "Synology"; model = "synology_geminilake_920+"; version = <0x01>; internal_slot@1 { protocol_type = "sata"; ahci { pcie_root = "00:11.0,04.0"; ata_port = <0x00>; }; }; internal_slot@2 { protocol_type = "sata"; ahci { pcie_root = "00:11.0,04.0"; ata_port = <0x02>; }; }; nvme_slot@1 { pcie_root = "00:15.0,00.0"; port_type = "ssdcache"; }; }; root@ARPL_VM:~# ll /sys/block | grep -e nvme -e sata lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jul 26 22:29 nvme0n1 -> ../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:15.0/0000:03:00.0/nvme/nvme0/nvme0n1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jul 26 22:29 sata1 -> ../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:11.0/0000:02:04.0/ata1/host0/target0:0:0/0:0:0:0/block/sata1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 0 Jul 26 22:29 sata2 -> ../devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:11.0/0000:02:04.0/ata3/host2/target2:0:0/2:0:0:0/block/sata2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartAcid Posted July 27, 2023 Share #2 Posted July 27, 2023 I confirm, I just upgrade 7.2_u1 (ds423+) to u2, and nvme drive gone. I tried to reload controler and drive in vbox but nothing change. U2 is killing nvme drives. I use arpl-18n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjz304 Posted July 27, 2023 Share #3 Posted July 27, 2023 I am currently on vacation and haven't turned on my computer in the past few days. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjz304 Posted July 28, 2023 Share #4 Posted July 28, 2023 The logic of libsynonvme.so.1 has changed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjz304 Posted July 28, 2023 Share #5 Posted July 28, 2023 SYNONVMeModelSpecGetByDts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjz304 Posted July 28, 2023 Share #6 Posted July 28, 2023 (edited) 现在,我们可以先使用 u1 的 libsynonvme.so.1。 curl -kLO https://github.com/wjz304/arpl-i18n/files/12193690/libsynonvme.so.1.gz && gzip -d libsynonvme.so.1.gz mv -f libsynonvme.so.1 /usr/lib/libsynonvme.so.1 && chmod a+r /usr/lib/libsynonvme.so.1 7.2u2 NVME (DT) ·问题 #140 ·WJZ304/ARPL-I18N (github.com) Edited August 1, 2023 by wjz304 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Suh Posted July 28, 2023 Author Share #7 Posted July 28, 2023 31 minutes ago, wjz304 said: For now, we can use u1's libsynonvme.so.1 first. curl -kLO https://github.com/wjz304/arpl-i18n/files/12193690/libsynonvme.so.1.gz && gzip -d libsynonvme.so.1.gz mv -f libsynonvme.so.1 /usr/lib/libsynonvme.so.1 && chmod a+r /usr/lib/libsynonvme.so.1 7.2u2 nvme (DT) · Issue #140 · wjz304/arpl-i18n (github.com) @wjz304 Thanks for finding the cause. If so, it seems that u1's libsynonvme.so.1 file should be scripted to automatically recover from ARPL or M-SHELL. I think we need to see the trend after u3, but we are going to patch for smallfixversions that are larger than u2. M SHELL has nvme-cache addon installed by default, so we plan to implement it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartAcid Posted July 28, 2023 Share #8 Posted July 28, 2023 50 minutes ago, wjz304 said: For now, we can use u1's libsynonvme.so.1 first. curl -kLO https://github.com/wjz304/arpl-i18n/files/12193690/libsynonvme.so.1.gz && gzip -d libsynonvme.so.1.gz mv -f libsynonvme.so.1 /usr/lib/libsynonvme.so.1 && chmod a+r /usr/lib/libsynonvme.so.1 7.2u2 nvme (DT) · Issue #140 · wjz304/arpl-i18n (github.com) Tip is working afret synology restart. m.2 disk appear again. But still no chance for storage pool on m.2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjz304 Posted July 28, 2023 Share #9 Posted July 28, 2023 1 minute ago, BartAcid said: Tip is working afret synology restart. m.2 disk appear again. But still no chance for storage pool on m.2. This is just a replacement of the U1 library file. If it is used as a storage pool, the previous cracking process still needs to be operated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartAcid Posted July 28, 2023 Share #10 Posted July 28, 2023 I didn't use crack, i'm testing ds423 witch has native support for m.2 pool. I thought it should work without any crack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjz304 Posted July 28, 2023 Share #11 Posted July 28, 2023 seems it that a Syno certified brand's SSD is necessary? To be honest, I don't have much research on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Suh Posted August 1, 2023 Author Share #12 Posted August 1, 2023 Starting with 7.2-64570 U2, power_limit is used in nvme's model.dtb. @jimmmmm first power_limit="100"; on SA6400 I came up with the idea of enabling nvme with the settings of Thanks to @wjz304's efforts, the addon that can activate nvme has been re-applied to all DT models including SA6400. ARPL-i18n is completed with disk addon and MSHELL for TCRP is completed with the dtbpatch addon. For this part, the scripts for both loaders are identical. It is no longer necessary to take U1's version of libsynonvme.so.1 and overwrite U2's. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdriver Posted August 17, 2023 Share #13 Posted August 17, 2023 Hi @Peter Suh could you help explain , I have just lost my NVME storage pool (consisting 1 NVME drive) I had setup a storage pool on Ds920+ with 7.2-64570 Having updated to 7.2-64570 Update 3 the storage pool and volume has gone . Mshell TCRPL with friend (withfriend updated from 8a to 8b when i updated) Anyway to get back my drive and volume ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Suh Posted August 18, 2023 Author Share #14 Posted August 18, 2023 (edited) 11 hours ago, scoobdriver said: Hi @Peter Suh could you help explain , I have just lost my NVME storage pool (consisting 1 NVME drive) I had setup a storage pool on Ds920+ with 7.2-64570 Having updated to 7.2-64570 Update 3 the storage pool and volume has gone . Mshell TCRPL with friend (withfriend updated from 8a to 8b when i updated) Anyway to get back my drive and volume ? TCRP's ADDON does not yet support NVMe storage pools. You didn't reveal what solution made the NVMe storage pool. Wouldn't it be right to demand improvements from the developers of ADDON who provided the solution? Edited August 18, 2023 by Peter Suh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdriver Posted August 18, 2023 Share #15 Posted August 18, 2023 5 hours ago, Peter Suh said: TCRP's ADDON does not yet support NVMe storage pools. You didn't reveal what solution made the NVMe storage pool. Wouldn't it be right to demand improvements from the developers of ADDON who provided the solution? Thanks for the update. I re-built the loader , with no further action and the pool became visible again . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.