From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from www.osadl.org ([213.239.205.134] helo=mail.tglx.de) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1I5xqr-00079z-0w for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 04 Jul 2007 01:56:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [2.6.23] nand_flash_dev - add manufacturer ID From: Thomas Gleixner To: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1183507424.29081.73.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> References: <200707032354.l63Ns7gh010492@escobita.pasemi.com> <1183507424.29081.73.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:55:54 +0200 Message-Id: <1183528554.3291.60.camel@chaos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: olof@lixom.net, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, c@pasemi.com, Egor Martovetsky List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 20:03 -0400, David Woodhouse wrote: > 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. We do that already: /* Check if chip is a not a samsung device. Do not clear the * options for chips which are not having an extended id. */ if (*maf_id != NAND_MFR_SAMSUNG && !type->pagesize) chip->options &= ~NAND_SAMSUNG_LP_OPTIONS; So we should do this for that one as well. tglx