From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [195.209.228.254] (helo=shelob.oktetlabs.ru) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.52 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1E51MX-0008Vp-PN for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:20:21 -0400 Message-ID: <4301E7EC.70906@yandex.ru> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:19:40 +0400 From: "Artem B. Bityuckiy" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ferenc Havasi , Thomas Gleixner References: <42E5E816.5090500@inf.u-szeged.hu> <20050726074440.GB15903@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <42E5ECE5.4010901@inf.u-szeged.hu> <20050726093215.GD15903@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <20050726100330.GF15903@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <42EDF04C.1010108@inf.u-szeged.hu> <20050801095645.GA32464@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <42EDF470.4060208@inf.u-szeged.hu> <20050801104343.GB32464@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <42EE2B78.70500@inf.u-szeged.hu> <20050801141841.GD32464@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <42FB68AE.6070805@inf.u-szeged.hu> <42FB732B.5040405@yandex.ru> <42FB8402.5000705@inf.u-szeged.hu> <1123776399.16052.70.camel@sauron.oktetlabs.ru> <43007B6A.3040402@inf.u-szeged.hu> <43008930.5050405@yandex.ru> <4300CC8C.9090206@inf.u-szeged.hu> In-Reply-To: <4300CC8C.9090206@inf.u-szeged.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH]fs/jffs2/wbuf.c: add compatibility support for OOB data block List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ferenc Havasi wrote: > It writes > > [nandsim] errorr: write_byte: chip is disabled, ignore write > > with its default configuration. It worked well earlier. Maybe there were > changes in mtd... > Hmm, I also see this message. But nandsim still works just fine.. Thomas, nandsim issues a warning that one sends command to nand while it is disabled. Not sure, but isn't this patch should be applied to nand_base.c: --- nand_base.c 2005-08-05 14:44:30.000000000 +0400 +++ nand_base_fixed.c 2005-08-16 17:13:41.620785252 +0400 @@ -2652,6 +2652,9 @@ int nand_scan (struct mtd_info *mtd, int mtd->owner = THIS_MODULE; + /* Select the device */ + this->select_chip(mtd, 0); + /* Reset the chip */ this->cmdfunc (mtd, NAND_CMD_RESET, -1, -1); At line 2621 we did: /* De-select the device */ this->select_chip(mtd, -1); so it seems logical to enable it before sending the reset command, isn't it ? -- Best Regards, Artem B. Bityuckiy, St.-Petersburg, Russia.