From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eu1sys200aog109.obsmtp.com ([207.126.144.127]) by merlin.infradead.org with smtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1RaTI1-0003Cu-DY for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:25:06 +0000 Message-ID: <4EE7602F.30508@st.com> Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:24:47 +0000 From: Angus CLARK MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [PATCH (mtd-www) 05/13] nand-data: remove incorrect/duplicate Numonyx NAND01G devices References: <1323173269-19931-1-git-send-email-angus.clark@st.com> <1323173269-19931-2-git-send-email-angus.clark@st.com> <1323173269-19931-3-git-send-email-angus.clark@st.com> <1323173269-19931-4-git-send-email-angus.clark@st.com> <1323173269-19931-5-git-send-email-angus.clark@st.com> <4EE1EB20.4070001@st.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Brian, On 12/09/2011 09:14 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Angus CLARK wrote: >> On 12/07/2011 07:28 PM, Brian Norris wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Angus CLARK wrote: >>>> The table includes two entries for each of the following Numonyx devices: >>>> NAND01GR3B2B, NAND01GW3B2B, NAND01GR4B2B, NAND01GW4B2B. This patch removes the >>>> second set since it disagrees with the datasheets I have with regards to ONFI >>>> V1.0 support and the READID data. >>> >>> This one's strange. I have 2 different data sheets for this part (both >>> Numonyx) and I have a sample NAND that's labeled "ST Micro >>> NAND01GW3B2C." The sample has ID 0x20F1001D, matching the row for >>> NAND01GW3B2B which you are deleting. The chip *is* ONFI-capable, and >>> yields a manufacturer/part string of "ST Micro NAND01GW3B2CN6." >>> >> >> Yes, the "Rev C" version, NAND01GW3B2C, does support ONFI, and returns a READID >> of 0x20F1001D. (Although interestingly, on my sample, it returns the "ONFI" >> signature but not the parameter page - I will investigate further!). > > My chip (branded ST) is rev. C and it returns the signature and > parameter page properly. > >> I do not have an equivalent "Rev B" sample (ie NAND01GW3B2B), but all the >> information I have suggests the "Rev B" family of devices does not support ONFI, >> and the READID matches the "first" set of entries in the datasheet. >> >> Perhaps this is a "Rev C" vs "Rev B" issue, in which case, I would suggest >> applying the patch and maybe adding the "Rev C" versions to the table. What do >> you think? > > I don't think that's quite right. I'll explain: > > (1) I have two datasheets for this part, with *different* revision > histories (they don't even have the same origin date) > (2) The first sheet includes Rev. B and Rev. C information, supposedly Would you be able to email a copy of the datasheet that covers both NAND01GW3B2B and NAND01GW3B2C devices? I have several datasheets for each separately, but none that covers both. > (3) The second sheet includes Rev. C only > (4) The entries you deleted were from the second sheet and probably > should have been labeled Rev. C, not Rev. B - the datasheet was > inconsistent. Yes, that makes sense, and is what I was meant when I suggested it was a "Rev C" vs "Rev B" issue. I believe the data corresponds to NAND01GW3B2C rather than NAND01GW3B2B. My patch deleted this entry, since a correct NAND01GW3B2B already existed, and I then suggested adding a correct entry for NAND01GW3B2C. Perhaps we just update the patch to rename the incorrect NAND01GW3B2B entry with NAND01GW3B2C? > (5) My sample part (ST NAND01GW3B2C) returns proper ONFI signature and > parameter page > (6) My sample part (ST NAND01GW3B2C) reads an actual ID that matches > the string from the NAND01GW3B2B that you are deleting (this is a > mixup/typo; see comment (4)) > > I'm not sure how to reconcile the histories from (1). Perhaps my 1st > sheet represents *only* Rev. B and the second sheet represents *only* > Rev. C? That would be my guess, but anything is possible when it comes to NAND datasheets! > > If my statements aren't clear enough, I'll send a sample patch that > would 'reconcile' things a bit. > > BTW, what's the ID string from your sample? > My sample returns a READID of 0x20f1001d. It returns the 'ONFI' signature from READID to 0x20, but I still fail to get anything back from NAND_CMD_PARAM. I suspect it is a bug in my driver somewhere, but I haven't had a chance to look into it further yet. > Any thoughts on the ST vs. Numonyx naming? Are they entirely > interchangeable names for these chips, where you may find similar/same > parts with different manufacturers slapped on? (seeing as I have an ST > part that matches a Numonyx data sheet) > Yes, when Numonyx was spun-out from ST, the datasheets were re-branded but the actual chip packages still used the ST logo, and the ST JEDEC ID (and ST fabs I believe). Numonyx has now been brought by Micron, and it seems Micron are only offering "Numonyx" parts that do not clash with its own portfolio. Cheers, Angus