From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from netserv.ipi.ac.ru ([83.149.245.1] helo=ipi.ac.ru) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1EFWx6-0005dk-8P for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:05:34 -0400 Message-ID: <4328200F.7050306@ipi.ac.ru> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:05:19 +0400 From: "Timofei V. Bondarenko" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aras Vaichas References: <43267172.20702@magellan-technology.com> <432691B7.5040804@magellan-technology.com> <4327A4F8.60300@magellan-technology.com> In-Reply-To: <4327A4F8.60300@magellan-technology.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: MTD-LIST Subject: Re: JFFS2+NAND problem in 2.6.13-at91 List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi. Aras Vaichas wrote: > I did a diff between the nand_base.c version shipped with 2.6.13 (v1.147) and > 2.6.12-rc1 (v1.138) and noticed that a delay loop had been moved further down > the code, I moved this delay back to where it was in v1.138 and it is now > working again. i assume that there was a probably a good reason to move this > delay in the first place though and I don't wish to break anything else ... The delay_loop calibration logic has been changed in 2.6.13. It might break udelay() on some architectures. -- Regards. Tim.