From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eu1sys200aog114.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.137]) by merlin.infradead.org with smtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1RYvvh-0006dF-Tt for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 08:35:42 +0000 Message-ID: <4EE1C855.5040001@st.com> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 08:35:33 +0000 From: Angus CLARK MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH (mtd-www) 02/13] nand-data: updates to S30ML-P devices References: <1323173269-19931-1-git-send-email-angus.clark@st.com> <1323173269-19931-2-git-send-email-angus.clark@st.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: gernot.hoyler@spansion.com, Brian Norris List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Brian, On 12/07/2011 06:49 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Angus CLARK wrote: >> Updates to Spansion S30ML-P devices: >> - expand names to differentiate between x8 and x16 devices > > Expanding the names is probably good, but I don't really like the > "-FI{00,50}" piece. There are a few places where I used a wildcard in > the table to represent "don't care" characters. I think a lower-case > `x' might make sense, for example: > > S30ML512P30-FIx0 > S30ML512P50-FIx1 > S30ML256P30-FIx0 > ... > Yes, agreed. Will update the patch (and see comments below). > >> - fix ID 5th byte: 0x01 to 0x10 (checked with datasheet; seems regression >> introduced as part of commit 165cfaa9cdb1054bbafa98f24f179c6aa101fbe6 >> "nand-data: remove asterisks") > > Hmm, not exactly a regression, but I overlooked it when merging in > changes to my local table. In fact, I have a data sheet that lists the > ID with 0x01, but it may be out of date. It's hard to find a current > one from Spansion's website, although a random copy I found off a > third party site confirms your given string, I think. Then, there's a > posting from Gernot Hoyler last year that gives this sample string. > It's slightly different (at id_data[2]): > > id_data[0]=0x01 > id_data[1]=0x56 > id_data[2]=0x00 > id_data[3]=0x01 > id_data[4]=0x10 > id_data[5]=0x00 > id_data[6]=0x00 > id_data[7]=0x00 > > I'm thinking: > > id_data[2] = 0x00 or 0x01, depending on model as stated in data sheet. > I just ignored the 0x00 option. > id_data[4] = 0x10 > The datasheet I have is Rev 3.0 (April 8, 2008). According to the revision history, id_data[4] was updated in Rev 2.0. Would this fit your datasheet? id_data[2] is 0x01 for the "ECC-free/0% bad blocks" device, and 0x00 for the "ECC required/2% bad blocks" model. This "Notes" column already mentions this. > Anyway, it may be apparent by now that I don't actually have a sample > of this chip myself. I'll go with whoever has a current data sheet > and/or actual chip. > I haven't tested one myself either - I will see if we have any samples lying around, but I suspect not... Cheers, Angus