On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:01:58 +0530 Vipin Kumar vipin.kumar@st.com wrote:
Hello Scott,
The present handling of ONFI devices requires that the device id to be put in "nand_flash_ids" table. I am pasting the code below to ease the discussion
In case the dev_id doesn't match with the one's present in the table type->name points to null and an error -ENODEV is returned. detect onfi is never called
if (!type) type = nand_flash_ids;
for (; type->name != NULL; type++) if (*dev_id == type->id) break;
if (!type->name) { /* supress warning if there is no nand */ if (*maf_id != 0x00 && *maf_id != 0xff && *dev_id != 0x00 && *dev_id != 0xff) printk(KERN_INFO "%s: unknown NAND device: " "Manufacturer ID: 0x%02x, Chip ID: 0x%02x\n", __func__, *maf_id, *dev_id); return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); }
if (!mtd->name) mtd->name = type->name;
chip->chipsize = (uint64_t)type->chipsize << 20; chip->onfi_version = 0;
ret = nand_flash_detect_onfi(mtd, chip, &busw); if (!ret) nand_flash_detect_non_onfi(mtd, chip, type, &busw);
Is the behavior expected ? Am I missing something
Florian, any insight here? It looks like Linux behaves differently.
-Scott