From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lakermmtai18.cox.net ([68.230.240.41]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DHCBY-0007ya-Mt for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:47:01 -0500 Message-ID: <424CAE31.8040302@ieee.org> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:13:05 -0500 From: Dan Brown MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zeri Virgo References: <4249C357.2040600@ieee.org> <424C1C58.3000905@infocell-its.com> <424C5F16.8010809@ieee.org> <424CA4EA.8090904@infocell-its.com> In-Reply-To: <424CA4EA.8090904@infocell-its.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [UPDATE] DOCBoot support for NFTL-based DOC2000 List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Zeri Virgo wrote: > > - How big is your firmware area? (I'm assuming you resized it using > > the DOS-based tools) > Well, I used dformat on a different chip as suggested, but that was with > the unpatched kernel, so the chip probing failed (but didn't crash). > I'm now using a fresh one - I didn't think I should _have_ to resize the > firmware area first, should I? I'll try the patched kernel with a > resized-firmware-area chip tomorrow....ZZZ No, you're quite right. In fact, it's very useful for me to know that the code crashes even when you don't have a resized firmware area. Don't even bother trying it with a resized firmware tomorrow :) > > - Did the diskonchip driver work for you without crashing before my > > latest changes? > Yes, I've been using 2.6.11.5 with the diskonchip driver compiled in - > see first dmesg section below... So is it correct to say that you've just switched from the diskonchip driver which is distributed as part of 2.6.11.5, to the diskonchip driver from the MTD CVS repository? If so, then any of the changes between the MTD version in 2.6.11.5 and the current CVS are potentially the problem, not just my latest change to diskonchip.c The version of diskonchip.c in 2.6.11.5 is 1.45. I don't see anything in the changes between then and now (1.50) that should cause the behavior you're seeing, which means either the problem is in a different file or I'm just not seeing it :) I'll stare at it some more tomorrow. Anyone else (Thomas?) have any ideas where to look? > Sorry I haven't offered any real help on this! > > - Zeri On the contrary, you're much better at providing the right information than most people. -Dan