On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:43:55 +0800 Lei Wen <adrian.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. Let's do the same thing Linux does, then. It looks like it's not just writesize that is different... > > 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? My point is just that we should make autodetection work if it's practical. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot