From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frontend1.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.30]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Bv87S-000410-U2 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 01:27:20 -0400 Message-ID: <411AFFAF.5030908@fastmail.fm> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:27:11 +1000 From: Brendan Simon MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Brown References: <4111AEA6.2080605@fastmail.fm><003f01c47aeb$706113d0$0100a8c0@superfortress> <4119723E.8050205@fastmail.fm> <032f01c47fa1$ae533f50$0100a8c0@superfortress> In-Reply-To: <032f01c47fa1$ae533f50$0100a8c0@superfortress> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org 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: , 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the MSYS docs I have might be out of date (I'm pretty sure the 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.