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
