From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Hq5G3-0000Ne-Ul for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 21 May 2007 06:36:57 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so857639uge for ; Mon, 21 May 2007 03:36:54 -0700 (PDT) From: borasah@gmail.com To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: 128 MiB NAND flash - all eraseblocks bad Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 13:44:02 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705211344.02914.borasah@gmail.com> List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, After I did some progress on 64MiB NAND flash on the eval board(Au1200 - DB1200), I decided to try my chance on our custom board. The NAND part we use in our custom board is K9F1G08U0A. It has (2K + 64) page size and (128K + 4K) eraseblock size. Kernel -> 2.6.20.1. Error messages: NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xec, Chip ID: 0xf1 (Samsung NAND 128MiB 3,3V 8-bit) Scanning device for bad blocks Bad eraseblock 0 at 0x00000000 Bad eraseblock 1 at 0x00020000 ... Bad eraseblock 1022 at 0x07fc0000 Bad eraseblock 1023 at 0x07fe0000 Creating 2 MTD partitions on "NAND 128MiB 3,3V 8-bit": It marks all the eraseblocks as BAD. I tried it in 2.6.11 but the same... The first thing I suspect was timings. I examined processor and NAND datasheets; seems processor NAND block timing paramters are slower than equivalent NAND flash timing paremeters. Also the driver can access manufacturer id etc. So I think it shouldnt be a problem. Then I debugged "nand_scan"(linux-2.6.11) a bit and reached to the point that there may be some wrong things in "au1xxx_nand_command". What may be the cause of these error messages? Where should I look at? Thanks... -- Bora SAHIN