Re: DiskOn Chip Millennium Plus 32MB + INFTL

[Husam <husamsenussi@gmail.com>]

Hi,

I have manage to get the driver work with 32MiB, so now I need to see if I can 
get it to work with 64 MiB.

On Saturday 10 June 2006 23:05, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 13:21 +0100, Husam wrote:
> > Yes thats correct but the 32MiB consist of two "NAND 16MiB, 8-bit" Chip,
> > providing 16 bit access using interleave, and that double size the page
> > "Page = 1024 + 32 OOB".
> >
> > But does NAND layer need to be abee to handle Multi floor device?
>
> Hm, no -- it's two separate device, isn't it? So don't we just have to
> probe them separately and then perhaps use something like mtdconcat?
>
> > > > 2. When I set bus width to 16 in diskonchip level nand_scan return an
> > > > error because that doesn't match with table.
> > >
> > > Doesn't match with which table? What chip ID is detected?
> >
> > Yes the ID exist on the table "mfr = 0x98 (Toshiba) , id = 0x75" which
> > match the id I get from trueffs driver for wince, so I would expect "NAND
> > 16MiB, 8-bit". However as I said before the driver should double the size
> > of the page because of interleave.
>
> Hm, is it actually two 8-bit chips, rather than a single 16-bit chip?
>
> In that case, we might have to do a bit more to make it work.
>
> > > > 4. I found that read_buff terminate the read each time, and because
> > > > of that nand_read_ecc skip bytes when read across sections.
> > >
> > > I think the new code probably fixed this, didn't it? If not, we can
> > > make sure it does.
> >
> > No  you are still terminating the read at the end of read_buf function,
> > you wold need to
> >
> > 1. Send READ command
> > 2. Read date "e.g. 512 bytes"
> > 3. Read ECC 6 bytes
> > 4. terminate read stream
> >
> > My be diskonchip layer should implement read_page !!!
>
> Yeah, I think that's probably a sane plan.
>
> > > > 5. Layout of the data on the page is different form 16M, but I'm not
> > > > sure if this is specific  to INTFL.
> > >
> > > I _think_ it's specific to INFTL -- it's weird, though. I don't
> > > actually know why M-Systems did that interleaving. There are guys from
> > > M-Systems on the list though -- perhaps they can enlighten us?
> >
> > But would be able to use the same layout with jffs?
>
> I see no reason why not.
>
> > > Now is a good time to get the remaining issues fixed. I'd very much
> > > like to have the 32MiB and 64MiB DiskOnChip Millennium Plus devices
> > > working.
> >
> > Thats good ... because from what I see 64MiB is not even supported by
> > INTFL layer, in 64MiB each device has separate boot records but
> > information for some of the partitions into the two boot records.
>
> Hm, OK -- we'll need to work on that too.
>
> Let's forget INFTL for now -- can we work on getting basic read/write
> operations on the 32MiB unit working first? We can do 64MiB next, then
> INFTL (for 32MiB and then 64MiB).