From: Florian Fainelli florian@openwrt.org

This patch sync with Brian's patch on Linux in nand_flash_detect_onfi()

commit b7b1a29d94c17e4341856381bccb4d17495bea60 Author: Brian Norris computersforpeace@gmail.com Date: Sun Dec 12 00:23:33 2010 -0800

mtd: nand: rearrange ONFI revision checking, add ONFI 2.3

In checking for the ONFI revision, the first conditional (for checking "unsupported" ONFI) seems unnecessary. All ONFI revisions should be backwards-compatible; even if this is not the case on some newer ONFI revision, it should simply fail the second version-checking if-else block (i.e., the bit-fields for 1.0, 2.0, etc. would not be set to 1). Thus, we move our "unsupported" condition after having checked each bit field.

Also, it's simple enough to add a condition for ONFI revision 2.3. Note that this does *NOT* mean we handle all new features of ONFI versions above 1.0.

Signed-off-by: Brian Norris computersforpeace@gmail.com Acked-by: Florian Fainelli ffainelli@freebox.fr Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse David.Woodhouse@intel.com

Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli florian@openwrt.org --- diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c index 3cb92c1..52f8575 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c @@ -2461,20 +2461,24 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct mtd_info *mtd,

/* check version */ val = le16_to_cpu(p->revision); - if (val == 1 || val > (1 << 4)) { - printk(KERN_INFO "%s: unsupported ONFI " - "version: %d\n", __func__, val); - return 0; - } - - if (val & (1 << 4)) + if (val & (1 << 5)) + chip->onfi_version = 23; + else if (val & (1 << 4)) chip->onfi_version = 22; else if (val & (1 << 3)) chip->onfi_version = 21; else if (val & (1 << 2)) chip->onfi_version = 20; - else + else if (val & (1 << 1)) chip->onfi_version = 10; + else + chip->onfi_version = 0; + + if (!chip->onfi_version) { + printk(KERN_INFO "%s: unsupported ONFI " + "version: %d\n", __func__, val); + return 0; + }

if (!mtd->name) mtd->name = p->model;