From: Brendan Simon <BrendanSimon@fastmail.fm>
To: Dan Brown <dan_brown@ieee.org>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: 128MB DOC2000 with 2.4.X kernel
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:27:11 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <411AFFAF.5030908@fastmail.fm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <032f01c47fa1$ae533f50$0100a8c0@superfortress>
Dan Brown wrote:
>> 3) Recommend using 2.6 kernel and latest MTD tree.
>>
>>
>This would still be my recommendation, however, there has been some effort
>in the last few days to allow the latest MTD code to compile under the 2.4
>series. If you're dead-set against switching to 2.6, it might be worth your
>time to grab the latest MTD snapshot, patch your 2.4 kernel using the
>included script, and see what happens. No promises.
>
>
Depends whether it would patch to 2.4.18 sucessfully or whether it is
designed to patch to 2.4.26 or 2.4.27. If I have to do work to get it
to patch, then the time might be better spent porting 2.6.x to my board :)
>>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.
>>
>>
>INFTL [Inverse NAND Flash Translation Layer] M-Systems' latest flash
>management algorithm, used by the TrueFFS driver for the following devices:
>
>- DiskOnChip Millennium Plus
>- Mobile DiskOnChip Plus
>- DiskOnChip 2000 DIP (high), 384Mbytes and higher.
>- DiskOnChip 2000 DIP (low), 192Mbytes and higher.
>
>If I had reviewed this table before I responded to your email, I would have
>noticed that the 128M DOC ought to use NFTL. Are you sure you have a part
>that "looks like a Millennium"? (All DOC2000 parts that use the Millennium
>hardware interface also use INFTL, and vice versa.) I'm willing to believe
>the MSYS docs I have might be out of date (I'm pretty sure the
>low-profile/high-profile boundary has changed), but it would be good to
>confirm this.
>
>
I can confirm that the 128MB DOC I received in Australia definately DOES
NOT work. i.e. it looks like it has the new ASIC embedded in it. A
friend of mine in the USA also sees the same thing on his newly received
128MB DOC. Therefore I think the M-System docs are wrong.
Anyone know about the 96MB DOC2000 ????
Is it an old style or new style DOC2000 ????
Cheers,
Brendan Simon.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-12 5:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-05 3:51 128MB DOC2000 with 2.4.X kernel Brendan J Simon
2004-08-05 12:55 ` Dan Brown
2004-08-11 1:11 ` Brendan Simon
2004-08-11 12:49 ` Dan Brown
2004-08-12 5:27 ` Brendan Simon [this message]
2004-09-09 3:16 ` 96MB/128MB " Brendan Simon
2004-09-09 22:44 ` Kurt A. Freiberger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=411AFFAF.5030908@fastmail.fm \
--to=brendansimon@fastmail.fm \
--cc=dan_brown@ieee.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox