[U-Boot] NAND onfi detection

[U-Boot] NAND onfi detection

[Vipin Kumar]

Hello Scott,

The present handling of ONFI devices requires that the device id to be put in
"nand_flash_ids" table. I am pasting the code below to ease the discussion

In case the dev_id doesn't match with the one's present in the table type->name 
points to null and an error -ENODEV is returned. detect onfi is never called

	if (!type)
		type = nand_flash_ids;

	for (; type->name != NULL; type++)
		if (*dev_id == type->id)
			break;

	if (!type->name) {
		/* supress warning if there is no nand */
		if (*maf_id != 0x00 && *maf_id != 0xff &&
		    *dev_id  != 0x00 && *dev_id  != 0xff)
			printk(KERN_INFO "%s: unknown NAND device: "
				"Manufacturer ID: 0x%02x, Chip ID: 0x%02x\n",
				__func__, *maf_id, *dev_id);
		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
	}

	if (!mtd->name)
		mtd->name = type->name;

	chip->chipsize = (uint64_t)type->chipsize << 20;
	chip->onfi_version = 0;

	ret = nand_flash_detect_onfi(mtd, chip, &busw);
	if (!ret)
		nand_flash_detect_non_onfi(mtd, chip, type, &busw);

Is the behavior expected ?
Am I missing something

Regards
Vipin

[U-Boot] NAND onfi detection

[Scott Wood]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 12:01:58 +0530
Vipin Kumar <vipin.kumar@st.com> wrote:

> Hello Scott,
> 
> The present handling of ONFI devices requires that the device id to be put in
> "nand_flash_ids" table. I am pasting the code below to ease the discussion
> 
> In case the dev_id doesn't match with the one's present in the table type->name 
> points to null and an error -ENODEV is returned. detect onfi is never called
> 
> 	if (!type)
> 		type = nand_flash_ids;
> 
> 	for (; type->name != NULL; type++)
> 		if (*dev_id == type->id)
> 			break;
> 
> 	if (!type->name) {
> 		/* supress warning if there is no nand */
> 		if (*maf_id != 0x00 && *maf_id != 0xff &&
> 		    *dev_id  != 0x00 && *dev_id  != 0xff)
> 			printk(KERN_INFO "%s: unknown NAND device: "
> 				"Manufacturer ID: 0x%02x, Chip ID: 0x%02x\n",
> 				__func__, *maf_id, *dev_id);
> 		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> 	}
> 
> 	if (!mtd->name)
> 		mtd->name = type->name;
> 
> 	chip->chipsize = (uint64_t)type->chipsize << 20;
> 	chip->onfi_version = 0;
> 
> 	ret = nand_flash_detect_onfi(mtd, chip, &busw);
> 	if (!ret)
> 		nand_flash_detect_non_onfi(mtd, chip, type, &busw);
> 
> Is the behavior expected ?
> Am I missing something

Florian, any insight here?  It looks like Linux behaves differently.

-Scott