From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from adsl-67-64-89-145.dsl.austtx.swbell.net ([67.64.89.145] helo=draal.badgers-hill.net) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.42 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1C5XfC-0006ev-NJ for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 09 Sep 2004 18:45:12 -0400 Received: from [10.1.0.2] (ivanova.badgers-hill.net [10.1.0.2]) by draal.badgers-hill.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i89MtB94003887 for ; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 17:55:18 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from kurt@badgers-hill.net) Message-ID: <4140DCE8.10800@badgers-hill.net> Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 17:44:56 -0500 From: "Kurt A. Freiberger" 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> <413FCAFE.6090002@fastmail.fm> In-Reply-To: <413FCAFE.6090002@fastmail.fm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; 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: > 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 the MSYS docs I have might be out of date (I'm pretty sure the 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. I have trie the DOC2000 with both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels. It seems to be detected correctly, but I get a message about it being "temporarily unavailable". What gives? Thanks, Kurt -- Kurt A. Freiberger Austin, TX kurt@badgers-hill.net Amateur Radio Callsign WB5BBW AIM Handle: WB5BBW "Some people are like Slinkys - Generally considered useless, but you can't help smiling when you see them falling down the stairs."