From: Ivan Djelic <ivan.djelic@parrot.com>
To: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Cc: Christopher Harvey <charvey@matrox.com>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mtd: omap: nand: Remove 0xFF's that prefixed 16bit NAND addresses
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:29:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121115162913.GA21835@parrot.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1352992724.2221.61.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 03:18:44PM +0000, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 09:48 -0500, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:02:09PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 15:51 -0400, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> > > > In 16bit NAND mode the GPMC would send the address 0xNN as 0xFFNN
> > > > instead of 0x00NN on the bus. The 0xFFs were actually uninitialized
> > > > bits that were left unset in the GPMC command output register. The
> > > > reason they weren't initialized in 16bit mode is that if the same code
> > > > that writes to this register was used in 8bit mode then 2 commands
> > > > would be output in 8bit mode. One for the low byte, and an extra 0x0
> > > > command for the high byte. This commit uses writew if we're using
> > > > 16bit NAND. This commit also changes the high byte in the command
> > > > output register, but they are ignored by NAND chips anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Most chips seem fine with the extra 0xFFs, but the ONFI spec says
> > > > otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Harvey <charvey@matrox.com>
> > >
> > > Pushed to l2-mtd.git, thanks!
> >
> > !!! Did anybody get around to testing this? I thought this patch had
> > been abandoned. Will testing get done on an omap chip now that it
> > is in a tree?
> >
> > I should have prefixed it with RFC.
>
> I assume _you_ tested it, and Ivan was happy. But if it is untested, I
> am dropping it.
Unfortunately I can't test it at the moment,
BR,
--
Ivan
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ivan Djelic <ivan.djelic@parrot.com>
To: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Cc: Christopher Harvey <charvey@matrox.com>,
"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mtd: omap: nand: Remove 0xFF's that prefixed 16bit NAND addresses
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:29:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121115162913.GA21835@parrot.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1352992724.2221.61.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 03:18:44PM +0000, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 09:48 -0500, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 01:02:09PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 15:51 -0400, Christopher Harvey wrote:
> > > > In 16bit NAND mode the GPMC would send the address 0xNN as 0xFFNN
> > > > instead of 0x00NN on the bus. The 0xFFs were actually uninitialized
> > > > bits that were left unset in the GPMC command output register. The
> > > > reason they weren't initialized in 16bit mode is that if the same code
> > > > that writes to this register was used in 8bit mode then 2 commands
> > > > would be output in 8bit mode. One for the low byte, and an extra 0x0
> > > > command for the high byte. This commit uses writew if we're using
> > > > 16bit NAND. This commit also changes the high byte in the command
> > > > output register, but they are ignored by NAND chips anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Most chips seem fine with the extra 0xFFs, but the ONFI spec says
> > > > otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christopher Harvey <charvey@matrox.com>
> > >
> > > Pushed to l2-mtd.git, thanks!
> >
> > !!! Did anybody get around to testing this? I thought this patch had
> > been abandoned. Will testing get done on an omap chip now that it
> > is in a tree?
> >
> > I should have prefixed it with RFC.
>
> I assume _you_ tested it, and Ivan was happy. But if it is untested, I
> am dropping it.
Unfortunately I can't test it at the moment,
BR,
--
Ivan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-15 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-26 19:34 [PATCH v2] 16 bit NAND fix, request for testers Christopher Harvey
2012-10-26 19:36 ` [PATCH v2] mtd: omap: nand: Remove 0xFF's that prefixed 16bit NAND commands Christopher Harvey
2012-10-29 13:49 ` Ivan Djelic
2012-10-29 17:04 ` Christopher Harvey
2012-10-29 19:51 ` [PATCH v3] mtd: omap: nand: Remove 0xFF's that prefixed 16bit NAND addresses Christopher Harvey
2012-10-29 19:51 ` Christopher Harvey
2012-11-15 11:02 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-11-15 11:02 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-11-15 14:48 ` Christopher Harvey
2012-11-15 14:48 ` Christopher Harvey
2012-11-15 15:18 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-11-15 15:18 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2012-11-15 15:38 ` Christopher Harvey
2012-11-15 15:38 ` Christopher Harvey
2012-11-15 16:29 ` Ivan Djelic [this message]
2012-11-15 16:29 ` Ivan Djelic
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121115162913.GA21835@parrot.com \
--to=ivan.djelic@parrot.com \
--cc=charvey@matrox.com \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.