On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 21:46 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 19:42 -0700, Andrei Yakimov wrote:
> > For now lets stick with 1536 in u-boot.
> > I will send a patch.
> > At least it will not loosing flash over time
> > as nand ages.
> >
> > I understand what you wish, and will take a look
> > on it inside fresh new kernel. I found one more driver -
> > marvel looks like have same problem.
> > I will check how NAND_CMD_RNDOUT is working.
> > Perhaps we do not need extra read_param(),
> > and use only NAND_CMD_RNDOUT to get next
> > block inside page loop.
>
> Again, I'm a reluctant to use RNDOUT in the default read_param() because
> that would change the flow for all controllers and chips, and while the
> chip manual I'm looking at says it's OK, it introduces risk that it
> doesn't work everywhere (e.g. some controller drivers that provide their
> own cmdfunc don't implement RNDOUT).
Forget about read_param(),
just like this:
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
for (j = 0; j < sizeof(*p); j++)
((uint8_t *)p)[j] = chip->read_byte(mtd);
if (onfi_crc16(ONFI_CRC_BASE, (uint8_t *)p, 254) ==
le16_to_cpu(p->crc)) {
break;
}
chip->cmdfunc(mtd, NAND_CMD_RNDOUT, 0, -1);
}
and this is good - will be "no op" or "bad command" error,
which could be ignored - so for this drivers operation flow is
unchanged.
> -Scott
>
>
I am still learning git/patman.
It will be day or two while I figure out patman.
By some reason after "git commit --amend" patman kill my patch.
I am missing something.
Andrei
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
