On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:05:05PM +0800, Lei Wen wrote: >> Rebased version for this nand chip has one problem in detecting its >> page size using in nand_base.c. >> If we set page size 0 in nand_ids.c, we would get the calculation >> result as page size 2048, while the true page size is 4096. > > Is the ID data bad, or is there a bug in nand_get_flash_type(), or is it > some new ID format that needs support?
Samsung seem modify the ID name rule, which make the calculation method nand_get_flash_type doesn't work. In mainline linux code, it give a hardcode way to identify this type of nand with new calculation method. > >> I think it is reasonable to set the 32Gigabit nand as 4k page by >> default, as all nand been product in this size has >> more than 4k page. > > "more than"? Are there larger page size NANDs out there? 8k page nand exists, but they are for even larger nand, like 64Gb, or 128Gb. > > And if so, wouldn't hard-coding the page size at 4096 bytes be a problem? > > Is there zero possibility that a 2k page NAND in this size could be made in > the future (e.g. for compatibility with controllers that don't support 4k > pages)? Maybe we could post another patch for that kind of nand?... > > -Scott > > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
