From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 208.177.141.226.ptr.us.xo.net ([208.177.141.226] helo=ash.lnxi.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.22 #5 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1AKvTX-00026V-VR for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 08:08:12 +0000 To: Joshua Wise References: <200311150109.39539.joshua@joshuawise.com> From: ebiederman@lnxi.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 15 Nov 2003 01:08:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: <200311150109.39539.joshua@joshuawise.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: "Eric W. Biederman" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: JEDEC probing redux List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Joshua Wise writes: > I'm thinking two things here: 1) I'm assuming that the unlock address verify > is just paranoia. Can I nuke that? (Will it break anyone's board?) It will break things. Some flash chips will ID but nothing else with the wrong unlock address. So without the test some boards will not work. > and 2) Is > there a better way to say that we should be left-shifting all the unlock > addresses over? I am wondering if your map driver could handle that. Either or a solution like LART endian might be appropriate. Handling flash chips that are connected up peculiarly seems to be a recurring theme. If this isn't something the map driver can't do we may want to enhance that interface so it can handle more peculiar cases in the future. Eric