From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from code-monkey.de ([88.198.45.137])
	by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
	id 1OmYZG-0007Ai-Bg
	for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 20 Aug 2010 20:52:04 +0000
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:51:59 +0200
From: Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@code-monkey.de>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Bad assumption about ID field definition for Samsung NAND?
Message-ID: <20100820205159.GA9058@code-monkey.de>
References: <20100818180538.GA12238@code-monkey.de>
	<4C6C6BFC.9020408@broadcom.com>
	<20100819171558.GA8536@code-monkey.de>
	<AANLkTikiTX6US09pVu+uYm_U5=70WVbF+eH9wBtDeWKM@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C6DAFFD.4040602@broadcom.com>
	<AANLkTi=9RmDvzx-5n0UbnMUj2zMm41b1VA=PQqXK_Wgc@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100820134316.GA437@code-monkey.de>
	<4C6EBE90.2090604@broadcom.com>
	<1282334008.25239.91.camel@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1282334008.25239.91.camel@localhost>
Cc: r64343@freescale.com, Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@gmail.com>,
	"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	Brian Norris <norris@broadcom.com>
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
	<mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

David Woodhouse [2010-08-20 20:53]:
> On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 10:42 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On 08/20/2010 06:43 AM, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
> > 
> > > Okay, how do we proceed? Should I send a proper patch with the diff
> > > above? Or does anyone want to try and come up with a better fix...?
> > 
> > I vote for Tilman's patch. There's nothing unnecessarily ugly about it; 
> > it simply checks cell-type in order to decide whether we use Samsung's 
> > new "standard" for MLC or fall-back to the real standard. If anything, 
> > the existing code (checking ID length) is ugly. However, both checks 
> > seem necessary.
> 
> That's for 2.6.36 and -stable (for 2.6.35), yes?

Yes.

> @@ -2852,6 +2852,7 @@ static struct nand_flash_dev *nand_get_flash_type(struct mtd_info *mtd,
>                  */
>                 if (id_data[0] == id_data[6] && id_data[1] == id_data[7] &&
>                                 id_data[0] == NAND_MFR_SAMSUNG &&
> +                               (chip->cellinfo & NAND_CI_CELLTYPE_MSK) &&
>                                 id_data[5] != 0x00) {
>                         /* Calc pagesize */
>                         mtd->writesize = 2048 << (extid & 0x03);
> 
> Can I have a signed-off-by for it?

Signed-off-by: Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@code-monkey.de>

Thanks,
Tilman

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?