On Wed, 2015-05-20 at 20:03 -0700, Andrei Yakimov wrote: > 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).
RNDOUT is already used by nand_flash_detect_ext_param_page(), so this isn't as much of a concern for ONFI, but it could be an issue with nand_flash_detect_jedec(). > Forget about read_param(), Then how will it work on controllers like eLBC/IFC which is the whole point? > 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. RNDOUT needs to come before read_buf() and it needs to specify the offset you want. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot