From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Sakoman Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:43:17 -0700 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 08/11] mtd: nand: honor CONFIG_SYS_NAND_QUIET_TEST with unknown NAND printk In-Reply-To: <20100901112618.069e4da2@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> References: <1283296887-8631-1-git-send-email-steve@sakoman.com> <1283296887-8631-9-git-send-email-steve@sakoman.com> <0554BEF07D437848AF01B9C9B5F0BC5DA8709970@dlee01.ent.ti.com> <20100901112618.069e4da2@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> Message-ID: <1283359397.2011.104.camel@quadra> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:26 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:18:27 -0500 > "Paulraj, Sandeep" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This printk was added recently and results in ugly output on systems > > > with no NAND: > > > > > > NAND: nand_get_flash_type: unknown NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0x00, > > > Chip ID: 0x00 0 MiB > > > > > > instead of: > > > > > > NAND: 0 MiB > [snip] > > > if (!type) { > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_QUIET_TEST > > > printk(KERN_INFO "%s: unknown NAND device: Manufacturer ID:" > > > " 0x%02x, Chip ID: 0x%02x\n", __func__, > > > *maf_id, dev_id); > > > +#endif > > > return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > > > } > > > > > Hmm, the current use of that seems to be suppressing warnings about > NAND that isn't present at all, not about NAND whose type we don't > recognize. Well, that is precisely the case for new Beagle's and Overo's -- these boards do not have nand and output this error. So perhaps the real issue is that "no nand" is being reported as having a manufacturer id of 0x00 and device id of 0x00 ? > Perhaps we could instead suppress the warning only for probably-invalid > values such as 0x00 and 0xff, if that's how a missing NAND chip > manifests? That would also be acceptable to me. Is this your preferred fix? Steve