From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [2.6.23] nand_flash_dev - add manufacturer ID From: David Woodhouse To: Egor Martovetsky In-Reply-To: <200707032354.l63Ns7gh010492@escobita.pasemi.com> References: <200707032354.l63Ns7gh010492@escobita.pasemi.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 20:03:44 -0400 Message-Id: <1183507424.29081.73.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: olof@lixom.net, tglx@linutronix.de, c@pasemi.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 16:54 -0700, Egor Martovetsky wrote: > Patch for adding the manufacturer's ID to the nand_flash_dev > struct. This is needed to avoid selecting wrong flash device, > when device ID happens to be the same for different devices. > This change was prompted by addition of Micron MT29F4G08BABWP, > whose device ID(0xDC), matches a device ID of a Samsung flash. Hm. Please provide name and ICBM coordinates of the hardware engineers involved. On the other hand, it _is_ very similar to that Samsung flash. + {"NAND 512MiB 3,3V 8-bit", -1, 0xDC, 0, 512, 0, LP_OPTIONS}, + /* Micron MT29F4G08BABWP 4 Gigabit device */ + {"NAND 512MiB 3,3V 8-bit", NAND_MFR_MICRON, 0xDC, 0, 512, 0, + NAND_NO_AUTOINCR | NAND_CACHEPRG | NAND_NO_READRDY The difference between LP_OPTIONS and the options you've set for the new chip is just NAND_NO_PADDING | NAND_COPYBACK, right? Neither of which we actually use right now _anyway_. I wonder if we should do this differently, and mask certain features in or out according to the manufacturer, after identifying the chip. Thomas? -- dwmw2