[U-Boot-Users] New NAND code
Hi!
I was just wondering about state of the NAND code. When I remember correctly a pretty big rewrite was done but not commited yet. Is the last patch sent to this list from Pantelis Antoniou on 5th May still the latest version?
Best regards, Stefan
In message 007d01c46b59$d7ebc230$0212000a@PCSTEFAN you wrote:
I was just wondering about state of the NAND code. When I remember correctly a pretty big rewrite was done but not commited yet. Is the last patch sent to this list from Pantelis Antoniou on 5th May still the latest version?
Did anybody actually test this rewrite extensively? I don't remember any feedback?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Hello!
I was just wondering about state of the NAND code. When I remember correctly a pretty big rewrite was done but not commited yet. Is the last patch sent to this list from Pantelis Antoniou on 5th
May still the
latest version?
Did anybody actually test this rewrite extensively? I don't remember any feedback?
I just searched the archieve: Dave Ellis gave a feedback (3rd May) for an earlier version of the rewritten code. And Wolfgang Denk mentioned on 7th June that the code doesn't compile (for the PPChameleon Board).
Right now the patch from 5th May doesn't even apply to the current CVS.
Pantelis or Dave, could you give us any info about the status of the code? Are you still using your patch? Is there a newer version that applies to the current CVS? I am willing to do some testing...
Best regards, Stefan
Stefan Roese wrote:
Hello!
I was just wondering about state of the NAND code. When I remember correctly a pretty big rewrite was done but not commited yet. Is the last patch sent to this list from Pantelis Antoniou on 5th
May still the
latest version?
Did anybody actually test this rewrite extensively? I don't remember any feedback?
I just searched the archieve: Dave Ellis gave a feedback (3rd May) for an earlier version of the rewritten code. And Wolfgang Denk mentioned on 7th June that the code doesn't compile (for the PPChameleon Board).
Right now the patch from 5th May doesn't even apply to the current CVS.
Pantelis or Dave, could you give us any info about the status of the code? Are you still using your patch? Is there a newer version that applies to the current CVS? I am willing to do some testing...
Best regards, Stefan
I'm using the code extensively on my boards. There is one more thing in my TODO list; support large Samsung NANDs.
Unfortunately not much feedback was received from other users of NAND.
If I can scrape some time I'll send a patch against the current CVS.
I sure could use a tester though :)
Regards
Pantelis
Hi,
There is one more thing in my TODO list; support large Samsung NANDs.
Unfortunately not much feedback was received from other users of NAND.
If I can scrape some time I'll send a patch against the current CVS.
I sure could use a tester though :)
We're using a large (128MB) Samsung NAND flash, and would be happy to test any of your changes to support this.
Andy
In message 006701c47869$22540f50$0212000a@PCSTEFAN you wrote:
Dave Ellis gave a feedback (3rd May) for an earlier version of the rewritten code. And Wolfgang Denk mentioned on 7th June that the code doesn't compile (for the PPChameleon Board).
I assumed that the errors found by Dave were fixed in the new code?
Right now the patch from 5th May doesn't even apply to the current CVS.
Yes, and this is what seriously concerns me, too, as there were no significant changes to common/cmd_nand.c in the meantime.
Pantelis or Dave, could you give us any info about the status of the code? Are you still using your patch? Is there a newer version that applies to the current CVS? I am willing to do some testing...
There are many areas in the NAND code which look fishy. For example, the CFG_DIRECT_NAND_TFTP in "net/tftp.c" and "net/nfs.c" never checks the return value of nand_store_block().
[Thanks for re-starting this discussion.]
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:45:17AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Did anybody actually test this rewrite extensively? I don't remember any feedback?
Wolfgang,
today I downloaded Pantelis' patch from GMANE archive (thanks to Andrew Dyer for noticing and also excuse by blindness when reading U-Boot homepage). Patch was forward ported to current U-Boot code base and extended to support large page devices. I tested it with Samsung K91G16U0M and K91G08U0M NAND chips.
Unfortunately patch will be extremely hard to merge, because it is complete rewrite based on recent Linux MTD code. Therefore it is nearly imposible to sent chain of incremental patches. My prosal is to make compile time tests for all boards in U-Boot tree which has NAND support enabled and report results including code size changes. Than I'll send patch to mailing list (and posibly cc board maintainers) with request for testing. In case anyone has better idea, let me know.
Best regards, ladis
Hello,
in message 20050607151031.GA8694@orphique you wrote:
Unfortunately patch will be extremely hard to merge, because it is complete rewrite based on recent Linux MTD code. Therefore it is nearly
Which U-Boot files are affected?
imposible to sent chain of incremental patches. My prosal is to make compile time tests for all boards in U-Boot tree which has NAND support enabled and report results including code size changes. Than I'll send patch to mailing list (and posibly cc board maintainers) with request for testing. In case anyone has better idea, let me know.
Please feel free to go on as suggested.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
can u please send the link from where you download the patch. I tried to download the patch, but I could not find.
otherwise can u please upload the patch
Thanks rahul
participants (6)
-
Andy Hawkins -
Ladislav Michl -
Pantelis Antoniou -
rahul -
Stefan Roese -
Wolfgang Denk