From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from roc.holo.8d.com ([64.254.227.115]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.62 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1GRqDi-0007UV-5t for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:10:02 +0100 Message-ID: <4517D4AB.2060706@8d.com> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:07:55 -0400 From: Raphael Assenat MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: [PATCH] cmx270-nand: Make CMDLINE_PARTS usable References: <4507FE99.3030106@8d.com> <1158917790.24527.664.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <4513F01D.80608@8d.com> <1158936240.24527.733.camel@pmac.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <1158936240.24527.733.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 10:15 -0400, Raphael Assenat wrote: > >>Oh, sorry. My patch applies over the patch Mike Rapoport sent to the list on July 18 >>([PATCH] [MTD] CM-x270 NAND flash support), which I thought was already accepted. Was >>there anything wrong with it? Maybe you just missed it... >> >>I also sent a patch to the list on July 21 which added NAND flash support for the cm-x255 >>boards ([PATCH] Add support for NAND flash on cm-x255) but received no feedback. I can >>resend it if you wish. > > > July and August weren't really a good time for sending stuff that you > expect me to pay attention to; sorry. Yes -- please retest and resend. > > Can you explain how these two boards differ, and why they need two > separate drivers? Yes. NAND on cm-x255: - Uses physical address 0x04000000 - CS, ALE, CLE and RB mapped to pxa GPIOs 5,4,3,10 respectively. NAND on cm-x270: - CS and RB mapped to pxa GPIOs 11 and 89 - Read/Write with ALE/CLE inactive: 0x04000000 - Read/Write with ALE active: 0x04000008 - Read/Write with CLE active: 0x04000004 The base address is the same, but GPIOs used differ and the control signals are controlled differently. >>(BTW, every time I send to the linux-mtd list my message is held for moderator approval >>for reason 'Message has a suspicious header'. Who should I contact for more information? >>I'd like to know exactly what header(s) is/are 'suspicious' and fix them if possible). > > > It just doesn't like attachments. Send patches inline and they shouldn't > get trapped. Best regards, -- Raphael Assenat 8D Technologies Inc.