From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1BuheO-0000Xk-Ds for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:11:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4119723E.8050205@fastmail.fm> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:11:26 +1000 From: Brendan Simon MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org References: <4111AEA6.2080605@fastmail.fm> <003f01c47aeb$706113d0$0100a8c0@superfortress> In-Reply-To: <003f01c47aeb$706113d0$0100a8c0@superfortress> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Dan Brown Subject: Re: 128MB DOC2000 with 2.4.X kernel List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dear MTD gurus. Thanks for your feedback Dan. Summary regarding the 128MB DOC2000: 1) Cannot use NTFL. I *must* use INFTL 2) 128MB DOC2000 is more like a MilleniumPlus device than a DOC2000 device. 3) Recommend using 2.6 kernel and latest MTD tree. Is the 96MB DOC2000 more like the 64MB model or the 128MB model? i.e. can I use a 96MB DOC2000 with my existing 2.4.18 kernel or will I have the same problems as the 128MB DOC. Many thanks, Brendan Simon. Dan Brown wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brendan J Simon" >Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 11:51 PM > > > > >>I've just been reading the archives about 128MB DOCs looking like a >>Millenium device and the soltion being to do 4 reads, etc. >> >> > >Just to be absolutely clear: The reason it looks like a Millennium device >is that it is (in almost every respect) a Millennium device, from a hardware >access perspective. The "solution" you describe allows you to properly >detect the fact that it is a larger DOC2000, rather than a true Millennium, >but you still have to talk to it as if it were a Millennium. > > > >>If I modify docprobe.c to detect the 128MB DOC2000 correctly, will the >>rest of the MTD code work correctly with it ??? >> >> > >Depends on your definition of "correctly". You may be able to get the stock >2.4.18 MTD code to read and write your device with the modification you >describe (or you may not -- I haven't tried it). However, you'll be missing >a lot of critical functionality that has been added to the 2.6.8-rc2 kernel >(and the MTD CVS repository, which is even more up-to-date). > >In particular, you won't get proper bad block handling, because your device >uses INFTL (rather than NFTL), and the 2.4 series do not properly parse >INFTL bad block tables. Bad block detection becomes particularly critical >for larger devices. > > > >>I hope so as this would be a quick fix, however I do recall seeing >>something about 3 and 4 byte addresses. Is this relevant to getting >>128MB DOC working with 2.4.X kernels ? >> >> > >Not sure. I doubt the 128MB DOC is big enough to require 4-byte addresses. >(It depends on whether it's organized as one very large flash chip or >several -- does anyone know?) > > > >>I'm looking for the quickest solution. Any ideas, comments or >>suggestions would be greatly appreciated. >> >> > >I strongly suggest you put in the effort to switch to the latest kernel >(2.6.8-rc2 or later). I'm not certain that your quick fix to 2.4.18 will >work. You will certainly not have full functionality -- in addition to >proper bad block handling, the new DOC drivers under the NAND subsystem >allow you to use jffs2 cleanly on DOC devices, which you may be interested >in. > >Perhaps most importantly, you'll find people on this list to be much more >supportive and helpful to someone who is using the latest code. There's not >a whole lot of interest in helping people deal with problems that have >already been fixed in the newer code. > >Your best bet may be to grab the latest 2.6 kernel and patch it with the >latest MTD snapshot; others may disagree. > > > >>Is INTFL needed for the 128MB DOC2000 or can I use the NFTL code that I >>am currently using on the 64MB doc? >> >> > >You can't use NFTL. If you want to use an arbitrary filesystem (such as >ext2) on your device, you'll have to use INFTL. Another (better, in my >opinion) option is to switch to a filesystem that runs directly over the >flash device, such as JFFS2. The latest DOC drivers (the NAND subsytem >reimplementation, not the original stand-alone drivers) finally support this >cleanly. > >Good luck! > > -Dan Brown > > >