From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pacific.moreton.com.au ([203.143.235.130] helo=dorfl.internal.moreton.com.au) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 19TEld-0006yS-TR for ; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 06:48:58 +0100 Message-ID: <3EF2A02B.1000002@snapgear.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 15:48:27 +1000 From: Greg Ungerer MIME-Version: 1.0 To: angainor@evo.evopolska.com References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org cc: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: MTD drivers for DoC Millenium Plus List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , angainor@evo.evopolska.com wrote: >>>>I have studied the "DiskOnChip 2000 128Mb problem" >>>>thread here on list and tried to change the >>>>MAX_CHIPS_MPLUS define to something else than 1. >>>>Well, this way I got an 128MiB disk, then a >>>>256MiB one, and so on... :). way too many chips found. >> >>We will need to find out a little bit more about this >>part. The Millennium Plus family originally had 2 memebers, >>each with their own high level ID. Easy to tell them >>apart. There internal flash organization is quite different >>though, the larger (32MiB) part has dual interleaved >>flash. > >>This sure does look odd. The doc I have states that the firstUnit >>and lastUnit should be valid even for binary partitions. > > Well, i think i finally got something. As i thought, the > problem was that the driver did not recognize the size of the > DoC correctly. I played with MAX_CHIPS_MPLUS/MAX_FLOORS_MPLUS. > The correct setting seems to be in this case: > > MAX_CHIPS_MPLUS=1 > MAX_FLOORS_MPLUS=2 > > The detection code does not work here. > Maybe it should be done differently with DoCMP? > Greg, if you point me to proper data sheets, i might > try to figure out. According to M-Systems the 2nd flash is just accessed by setting the DeviceSelect register appropriately. So your above defines are correct. If this does not detect the 2nd flash then there must be a problem in the DoC_IdentChip() code. Reading the code nothing is immediately obviously wrong to me. You do need to skip using the 3 reserved blocks at the front of every flash device inside this thing though. Regards Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Greg Ungerer -- Chief Software Dude EMAIL: gerg@snapgear.com SnapGear Pty Ltd PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 825 Stanley St, FAX: +61 7 3891 3630 Woolloongabba, QLD, 4102, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com