From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 18HKjr-0007gH-00 for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:13:39 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <43CB1396676FD4119F03001083FD299401A1C6BA@neptune.kirkland.local> References: <43CB1396676FD4119F03001083FD299401A1C6BA@neptune.kirkland.local> To: Paul Nash Cc: "'linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org'" Subject: Re: Restart problems after writing to mtdblock? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 09:44:08 +0000 Message-ID: <20628.1038476648@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: paulnash@wildseed.com said: > On our StrongARM board at the moment, we don't have nRESET_OUT fed > into the flash chip. We're investingating that, but I would like to > knoew the root cause. This kind of thing is usually caused by inappropriate use of drugs on the part of the hardware designer, AFAICT. paulnash@wildseed.com said: > Partially answering my question, it looks like I was partly correct. > It appears that MTD is setup to lazily delay a reset to read array > mode until an actual read request comes along. In my case, this is > fatal. > I'm wondering if a reasonable solution is to do something like install > a reboot_notifier so I can guarantee the chip is back in Read Array > mode. Where would be a good place to do such a thing, or if this is a > bad idea, what is a better one? Thanks... It's been discussed before. IIRC the conclusion that it wouldn't be 100% reliable, and it was better to fix the hardware and confiscate the drugs. -- dwmw2