On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:01:58 +0530 Vipin Kumar <vipin.ku...@st.com> wrote:
> Hello Scott, > > The present handling of ONFI devices requires that the device id to be put in > "nand_flash_ids" table. I am pasting the code below to ease the discussion > > In case the dev_id doesn't match with the one's present in the table > type->name > points to null and an error -ENODEV is returned. detect onfi is never called > > if (!type) > type = nand_flash_ids; > > for (; type->name != NULL; type++) > if (*dev_id == type->id) > break; > > if (!type->name) { > /* supress warning if there is no nand */ > if (*maf_id != 0x00 && *maf_id != 0xff && > *dev_id != 0x00 && *dev_id != 0xff) > printk(KERN_INFO "%s: unknown NAND device: " > "Manufacturer ID: 0x%02x, Chip ID: 0x%02x\n", > __func__, *maf_id, *dev_id); > return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > } > > if (!mtd->name) > mtd->name = type->name; > > chip->chipsize = (uint64_t)type->chipsize << 20; > chip->onfi_version = 0; > > ret = nand_flash_detect_onfi(mtd, chip, &busw); > if (!ret) > nand_flash_detect_non_onfi(mtd, chip, type, &busw); > > Is the behavior expected ? > Am I missing something Florian, any insight here? It looks like Linux behaves differently. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot