2010/7/21 Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:43:55 +0800 Lei Wen adrian.wenl@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:05:05PM +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
Rebased version for this nand chip has one problem in detecting its page size using in nand_base.c. If we set page size 0 in nand_ids.c, we would get the calculation result as page size 2048, while the true page size is 4096.
Is the ID data bad, or is there a bug in nand_get_flash_type(), or is it some new ID format that needs support?
Samsung seem modify the ID name rule, which make the calculation method nand_get_flash_type doesn't work. In mainline linux code, it give a hardcode way to identify this type of nand with new calculation method.
Let's do the same thing Linux does, then.
In fact, Linux(nand_base.c) does not handle the pagesize, oobsize correctly for the new NAND. And actually, it's real difficult for providing one common caculation rule for all the NAND flash since the NAND ID data layout is not much the same as each other. Maybe, this is why there is not such patch in linux to fix this issue.
It looks like it's not just writesize that is different...
Is there zero possibility that a 2k page NAND in this size could be made in the future (e.g. for compatibility with controllers that don't support 4k pages)?
Maybe we could post another patch for that kind of nand?
My point is just that we should make autodetection work if it's practical.
-Scott
U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot