[U-Boot-Users] New NAND code

[U-Boot-Users] New NAND code

[Stefan Roese]

Hi!

I was just wondering about state of the NAND code. When I remember
correctly a pretty big rewrite was done but not commited yet. Is the
last patch sent to this list from Pantelis Antoniou on 5th May still the
latest version?

Best regards,
Stefan

[U-Boot-Users] New NAND code

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <007d01c46b59$d7ebc230$0212000a@PCSTEFAN> you wrote:
> 
> I was just wondering about state of the NAND code. When I remember
> correctly a pretty big rewrite was done but not commited yet. Is the
> last patch sent to this list from Pantelis Antoniou on 5th May still the
> latest version?

Did anybody actually test this rewrite extensively? I don't  remember
any feedback?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
I can't say I've ever been lost, but I was bewildered once for  three
days.                                     - Daniel Boone (Attributed)

[U-Boot-Users] New NAND code

[Stefan Roese]

Hello!

> > I was just wondering about state of the NAND code. When I remember
> > correctly a pretty big rewrite was done but not commited yet. Is the
> > last patch sent to this list from Pantelis Antoniou on 5th 
> May still the
> > latest version?
> 
> Did anybody actually test this rewrite extensively? I don't  remember
> any feedback?

I just searched the archieve:
Dave Ellis gave a feedback (3rd May) for an earlier version of the
rewritten code. And Wolfgang Denk mentioned on 7th June that the code
doesn't compile (for the PPChameleon Board).

Right now the patch from 5th May doesn't even apply to the current CVS.

Pantelis or Dave, could you give us any info about the status of the
code? Are you still using your patch? Is there a newer version that
applies to the current CVS? I am willing to do some testing...

Best regards,
Stefan

[U-Boot-Users] New NAND code

[Pantelis Antoniou]

Stefan Roese wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> 
>>>I was just wondering about state of the NAND code. When I remember
>>>correctly a pretty big rewrite was done but not commited yet. Is the
>>>last patch sent to this list from Pantelis Antoniou on 5th 
>>
>>May still the
>>
>>>latest version?
>>
>>Did anybody actually test this rewrite extensively? I don't  remember
>>any feedback?
> 
> 
> I just searched the archieve:
> Dave Ellis gave a feedback (3rd May) for an earlier version of the
> rewritten code. And Wolfgang Denk mentioned on 7th June that the code
> doesn't compile (for the PPChameleon Board).
> 
> Right now the patch from 5th May doesn't even apply to the current CVS.
> 
> Pantelis or Dave, could you give us any info about the status of the
> code? Are you still using your patch? Is there a newer version that
> applies to the current CVS? I am willing to do some testing...
> 
> Best regards,
> Stefan
> 
> 
> 

I'm using the code extensively on my boards.
There is one more thing in my TODO list; support large Samsung NANDs.

Unfortunately not much feedback was received from other users of NAND.

If I can scrape some time I'll send a patch against the current CVS.

I sure could use a tester though :)

Regards

Pantelis

[U-Boot-Users] New NAND code

[Andy Hawkins]

Hi,

> There is one more thing in my TODO list; support large Samsung NANDs.
>
> Unfortunately not much feedback was received from other users of NAND.
>
> If I can scrape some time I'll send a patch against the current CVS.
>
> I sure could use a tester though :)

We're using a large (128MB) Samsung NAND flash, and would be happy to test
any of your changes to support this.

Andy

[U-Boot-Users] New NAND code

[Wolfgang Denk]

In message <006701c47869$22540f50$0212000a@PCSTEFAN> you wrote:
> 
> Dave Ellis gave a feedback (3rd May) for an earlier version of the
> rewritten code. And Wolfgang Denk mentioned on 7th June that the code
> doesn't compile (for the PPChameleon Board).

I assumed that the errors found by Dave were fixed in the new code?

> Right now the patch from 5th May doesn't even apply to the current CVS.

Yes, and this is what seriously concerns me, too, as  there  were  no
significant changes to common/cmd_nand.c in the meantime.

> Pantelis or Dave, could you give us any info about the status of the
> code? Are you still using your patch? Is there a newer version that
> applies to the current CVS? I am willing to do some testing...

There are many areas in the NAND code which look fishy. For  example,
the CFG_DIRECT_NAND_TFTP in "net/tftp.c" and "net/nfs.c" never checks
the return value of nand_store_block().


[Thanks for re-starting this discussion.]

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple,  neat,
and wrong.                                           -- H. L. Mencken

[U-Boot-Users] New NAND code

[Ladislav Michl]

On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:45:17AM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Did anybody actually test this rewrite extensively? I don't  remember
> any feedback?

Wolfgang,

today I downloaded Pantelis' patch from GMANE archive (thanks to Andrew
Dyer for noticing and also excuse by blindness when reading U-Boot
homepage). Patch was forward ported to current U-Boot code base and
extended to support large page devices. I tested it with Samsung
K91G16U0M and K91G08U0M NAND chips.

Unfortunately patch will be extremely hard to merge, because it is
complete rewrite based on recent Linux MTD code. Therefore it is nearly
imposible to sent chain of incremental patches. My prosal is to make
compile time tests for all boards in U-Boot tree which has NAND support
enabled and report results including code size changes. Than I'll send
patch to mailing list (and posibly cc board maintainers) with request
for testing. In case anyone has better idea, let me know.

Best regards,
	ladis

[U-Boot-Users] New NAND code

[Wolfgang Denk]

Hello,

in message <20050607151031.GA8694@orphique> you wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately patch will be extremely hard to merge, because it is
> complete rewrite based on recent Linux MTD code. Therefore it is nearly

Which U-Boot files are affected?

> imposible to sent chain of incremental patches. My prosal is to make
> compile time tests for all boards in U-Boot tree which has NAND support
> enabled and report results including code size changes. Than I'll send
> patch to mailing list (and posibly cc board maintainers) with request
> for testing. In case anyone has better idea, let me know.

Please feel free to go on as suggested.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets  you  choose  your
own form of misery.

[U-Boot-Users] New NAND code

[rahul]

can u please send the link from where you download the patch. I tried to
download the patch, but I could not find.

otherwise can u please upload the patch

Thanks
rahul
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-New-NAND-code-tf56097.html#a5738976
Sent from the Uboot - Users forum at Nabble.com.

[U-Boot-Users] New NAND code

[Dave Ellis]

Pantelis Antoniou wrote: 
> Stefan Roese wrote:
> > I just searched the archieve:
> > Dave Ellis gave a feedback (3rd May) for an earlier version of the
> > rewritten code. And Wolfgang Denk mentioned on 7th June that the
code
> > doesn't compile (for the PPChameleon Board).

> > Pantelis or Dave, could you give us any info about the status of the
> > code? Are you still using your patch? Is there a newer version that
> > applies to the current CVS? I am willing to do some testing...

I am not using the patch. I intended to test it, but was very busy and
never got to it. 

> I'm using the code extensively on my boards.
> There is one more thing in my TODO list; support large Samsung NANDs.
> 
> Unfortunately not much feedback was received from other users of NAND.
> 
> If I can scrape some time I'll send a patch against the current CVS.
> 
> I sure could use a tester though :)

I'm not as busy now. I could test a new patch against current CVS to
make
sure it works for the commands I use.

Dave Ellis