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 4.42 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1C5FQ5-0004Se-Tf for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 23:16:25 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.58] (203-219-10-94-vic.tpgi.com.au [203.219.10.94]) by www.fastmail.fm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F60C1552E for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 23:16:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <413FCAFE.6090002@fastmail.fm> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 13:16:14 +1000 From: Brendan Simon MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org References: <4111AEA6.2080605@fastmail.fm><003f01c47aeb$706113d0$0100a8c0@superfortress> <4119723E.8050205@fastmail.fm> <032f01c47fa1$ae533f50$0100a8c0@superfortress> <411AFFAF.5030908@fastmail.fm> In-Reply-To: <411AFFAF.5030908@fastmail.fm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: 96MB/128MB DOC2000 with 2.4.X kernel List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Brendan Simon wrote: > >>> 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 the MSYS docs I have might be out of date (I'm pretty sure the 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 ???? A colleague of mine just tested a 96MB DOC and he says that it works perfectly with the 2.4 kernel. i.e. it is correctly detected as a DOC2000 device. Brendan Simon.