Device ID collision in amd_flash.c

Device ID collision in amd_flash.c

[Jonas Holmberg]

The (obsolete) AMD NOR-flash driver has an "probe-table-entry" for 
AM29BDS643D that happens to match AM29DL640G as well, even though they  
have different block/sector-layouts.

I think the problem is that AMD is assigning device-IDs of more than 
16-bits.  Anyhow, both AM29BDS643D and AM29DL640G supports CFI, so I 
would like to remove support for them in amd_flash.c (patch below) to 
avoid problems.

OK to commit?

/Jonas

PS. Would this patch ever find it's way into Linux 2.4 or just Linux 
2.6?



RCS file: /home/cvs/mtd/drivers/mtd/chips/amd_flash.c,v
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -r1.26 amd_flash.c
--- amd_flash.c 20 Nov 2004 12:49:04 -0000      1.26
+++ amd_flash.c 2 Feb 2005 11:03:07 -0000
@@ -67,7 +67,6 @@
 #define AM29LV160DT    0x22C4
 #define AM29LV160DB    0x2249
 #define AM29BDS323D     0x22D1
-#define AM29BDS643D    0x227E
 
 /* Atmel */
 #define AT49xV16x      0x00C0
@@ -618,17 +617,6 @@
                        { .offset = 0x3f0000, .erasesize = 0x02000, .numblocks =  8 },
                }
        }, {
-               .mfr_id = MANUFACTURER_AMD,
-               .dev_id = AM29BDS643D,
-               .name = "AMD AM29BDS643D",
-               .size = 0x00800000,
-               .numeraseregions = 3,
-               .regions = {
-                       { .offset = 0x000000, .erasesize = 0x10000, .numblocks = 96 },
-                       { .offset = 0x600000, .erasesize = 0x10000, .numblocks = 31 },
-                       { .offset = 0x7f0000, .erasesize = 0x02000, .numblocks =  8 },
-               }
-       }, {
                .mfr_id = MANUFACTURER_ATMEL,
                .dev_id = AT49xV16x,
                .name = "Atmel AT49xV16x",

Re: Device ID collision in amd_flash.c

[Jonas Holmberg]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 12:07:16PM +0100, Jonas Holmberg wrote:
> The (obsolete) AMD NOR-flash driver has an "probe-table-entry" for 
> AM29BDS643D that happens to match AM29DL640G as well, even though they  
> have different block/sector-layouts.
> 
> I think the problem is that AMD is assigning device-IDs of more than 
> 16-bits.  Anyhow, both AM29BDS643D and AM29DL640G supports CFI, so I 
> would like to remove support for them in amd_flash.c (patch below) to 
> avoid problems.
> 
> OK to commit?

Silly me, who cares about obsolete drivers...
Let me rephrase that question: Any objections before I commit on 
friday (tomorrow)?

I still would like to know how bugfixes finds their way into Linux 
2.4. As I understand, the main trunk in CVS is for 2.6 and I can't 
find any 2.4-branch...

Best regards
/Jonas

> 
> /Jonas
> 
> PS. Would this patch ever find it's way into Linux 2.4 or just Linux 
> 2.6?
> 
> 
> 
> RCS file: /home/cvs/mtd/drivers/mtd/chips/amd_flash.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.26
> diff -u -r1.26 amd_flash.c
> --- amd_flash.c 20 Nov 2004 12:49:04 -0000      1.26
> +++ amd_flash.c 2 Feb 2005 11:03:07 -0000
> @@ -67,7 +67,6 @@
>  #define AM29LV160DT    0x22C4
>  #define AM29LV160DB    0x2249
>  #define AM29BDS323D     0x22D1
> -#define AM29BDS643D    0x227E
>  
>  /* Atmel */
>  #define AT49xV16x      0x00C0
> @@ -618,17 +617,6 @@
>                         { .offset = 0x3f0000, .erasesize = 0x02000, .numblocks =  8 },
>                 }
>         }, {
> -               .mfr_id = MANUFACTURER_AMD,
> -               .dev_id = AM29BDS643D,
> -               .name = "AMD AM29BDS643D",
> -               .size = 0x00800000,
> -               .numeraseregions = 3,
> -               .regions = {
> -                       { .offset = 0x000000, .erasesize = 0x10000, .numblocks = 96 },
> -                       { .offset = 0x600000, .erasesize = 0x10000, .numblocks = 31 },
> -                       { .offset = 0x7f0000, .erasesize = 0x02000, .numblocks =  8 },
> -               }
> -       }, {
>                 .mfr_id = MANUFACTURER_ATMEL,
>                 .dev_id = AT49xV16x,
>                 .name = "Atmel AT49xV16x",
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

Re: Device ID collision in amd_flash.c

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 10:58 +0100, Jonas Holmberg wrote:
> Silly me, who cares about obsolete drivers...
> Let me rephrase that question: Any objections before I commit on 
> friday (tomorrow)?

Sorry, go ahead.

> I still would like to know how bugfixes finds their way into Linux 
> 2.4. As I understand, the main trunk in CVS is for 2.6 and I can't 
> find any 2.4-branch...

In general, they don't get in to 2.4. Nobody cares about 2.4 any more.
If it _works_ for you, all well and good. But if it hasn't already been
working for you for a year, then why are you trying to make it work now?
Use 2.6.

Feel free to send this change to Marcelo if you really care.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Device ID collision in amd_flash.c

[Jonas Holmberg]

On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 10:23:52AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 10:58 +0100, Jonas Holmberg wrote:
> > Silly me, who cares about obsolete drivers...
> > Let me rephrase that question: Any objections before I commit on 
> > friday (tomorrow)?
> 
> Sorry, go ahead.

Thanks.

> 
> > I still would like to know how bugfixes finds their way into Linux 
> > 2.4. As I understand, the main trunk in CVS is for 2.6 and I can't 
> > find any 2.4-branch...
> 
> In general, they don't get in to 2.4. Nobody cares about 2.4 any more.
> If it _works_ for you, all well and good. But if it hasn't already been
> working for you for a year, then why are you trying to make it work now?

I just noticed the bug. It only reveals itself when you try to erase 
the first sector on that particular chip, and we never had to do that, 
until now.

> Use 2.6.

Will do, but need bugfix for old stuff too.

It would be quite nice with a 2.4-branch that we can commit bugfixes 
to that could be sent to Marcelo regularly.  But if I'm the first to 
ask, we probably don't need it.

> 
> Feel free to send this change to Marcelo if you really care.

OK.

/Jonas

Re: Device ID collision in amd_flash.c

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 11:55 +0100, Jonas Holmberg wrote:
> It would be quite nice with a 2.4-branch that we can commit bugfixes 
> to that could be sent to Marcelo regularly.  But if I'm the first to 
> ask, we probably don't need it.

We have one for JFFS2. For the MTD code we probably don't need it.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Device ID collision in amd_flash.c

[Josh Boyer]

On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 11:24 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 11:55 +0100, Jonas Holmberg wrote:
> > It would be quite nice with a 2.4-branch that we can commit bugfixes 
> > to that could be sent to Marcelo regularly.  But if I'm the first to 
> > ask, we probably don't need it.
> 
> We have one for JFFS2. For the MTD code we probably don't need it.

Unless you finally get around to removing all the inter_module_* stuff
and use symbol_{get,put}... ;)

josh