[U-Boot] [PATCH] NAND: add Samsung K9LBG08UXD identifier

[Jason Liu]

2010/7/21 Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:43:55 +0800
> Lei Wen <adrian.wenl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 09:05:05PM +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
>> >> Rebased version for this nand chip has one problem in detecting its
>> >> page size using in nand_base.c.
>> >> If we set page size 0 in nand_ids.c, we would get the calculation
>> >> result as page size 2048, while the true page size is 4096.
>> >
>> > Is the ID data bad, or is there a bug in nand_get_flash_type(), or is it
>> > some new ID format that needs support?
>>
>> Samsung seem modify the ID name rule, which make the calculation
>> method nand_get_flash_type doesn't work.
>> In mainline linux code, it give a hardcode way to identify this type
>> of nand with new calculation method.
>
> Let's do the same thing Linux does, then.

In fact, Linux(nand_base.c) does not handle the pagesize, oobsize
correctly for the new NAND.
And actually, it's real difficult for providing one common caculation
rule for all the NAND flash since
the NAND ID data layout is not much the same as each other. Maybe,
this is why there is not such patch
in linux to fix this issue.

>
> It looks like it's not just writesize that is different...
>
>> > Is there zero possibility that a 2k page NAND in this size could be made in
>> > the future (e.g. for compatibility with controllers that don't support 4k
>> > pages)?
>>
>> Maybe we could post another patch for that kind of nand?
>
> My point is just that we should make autodetection work if it's
> practical.
>
> -Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
>