[PATCH 1/1] Revert "nand_base: detect more ONFI flash"

[PATCH 1/1] Revert "nand_base: detect more ONFI flash"

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

this brake the nand support on at91sam9x5ek
where we have a non compliant ONFI nand
NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xda (Hynix NAND 256MiB 3,3V 8-bit), 256MiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64

This reverts commit 4c2bdc8728016b3412523e3264651651fe752860.

Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
---
 drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c |   13 +++++++------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
index e8103cf..67e913a 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
@@ -1179,15 +1179,16 @@ static struct nand_flash_dev *nand_get_flash_type(struct mtd_info *mtd,
 		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
 	}
 
-	if (!type)
-		type = nand_flash_ids;
-
-	for (; type->name != NULL; type++)
-		if (dev_id == type->id)
+	/* Lookup the flash id */
+	for (i = 0; nand_flash_ids[i].name != NULL; i++) {
+		if (dev_id == nand_flash_ids[i].id) {
+			type =  &nand_flash_ids[i];
 			break;
+		}
+	}
 
 	chip->onfi_version = 0;
-	if (!type->name || !type->pagesize) {
+	if (!type) {
 		/* Check is chip is ONFI compliant */
 		ret = nand_flash_detect_onfi(mtd, chip, &busw);
 		if (ret)
-- 
1.7.10.4


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "nand_base: detect more ONFI flash"

[Sascha Hauer]

On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> this brake the nand support on at91sam9x5ek
> where we have a non compliant ONFI nand
> NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xda (Hynix NAND 256MiB 3,3V 8-bit), 256MiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64
> 
> This reverts commit 4c2bdc8728016b3412523e3264651651fe752860.

Thank you for letting us know that this patch causes a regression for
you. I this happens, please first try and fix the regression. If that
doesn't work please tell us what about the original patch is so wrong
that it needs to be reverted. With a good explanation it could be that
someone else has an idea. And whatever you do, put the original author,
Eric in this case, on Cc.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "nand_base: detect more ONFI flash"

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On May 8, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:

> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>> this brake the nand support on at91sam9x5ek
>> where we have a non compliant ONFI nand
>> NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xda (Hynix NAND 256MiB 3,3V 8-bit), 256MiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64
>> 
>> This reverts commit 4c2bdc8728016b3412523e3264651651fe752860.
> 
> Thank you for letting us know that this patch causes a regression for
> you. I this happens, please first try and fix the regression. If that
> doesn't work please tell us what about the original patch is so wrong
> that it needs to be reverted. With a good explanation it could be that
> someone else has an idea. And whatever you do, put the original author,
> Eric in this case, on Cc.

This commit was supposed just able to detect that a Nand is ONFI

but instead it brake supported Nand

So Eric can fix it but I've not time to debug this before 1 month
and the few platform that use ONFI are all busy

So as the commit just allow to detect a band is ONFI can we revert it

to keep non-ONFI Nand to work

Best Regards,
J.
> 
> Sascha
> 
> -- 
> Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
> Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "nand_base: detect more ONFI flash"

[Eric Bénard]

Hi Jean-Christophe,

Le Wed, 8 May 2013 15:30:24 +0800,
Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> a écrit :

> 
> On May 8, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> >> this brake the nand support on at91sam9x5ek
> >> where we have a non compliant ONFI nand
> >> NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xda (Hynix NAND 256MiB 3,3V 8-bit), 256MiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64
> >> 
> >> This reverts commit 4c2bdc8728016b3412523e3264651651fe752860.
> > 
> > Thank you for letting us know that this patch causes a regression for
> > you. I this happens, please first try and fix the regression. If that
> > doesn't work please tell us what about the original patch is so wrong
> > that it needs to be reverted. With a good explanation it could be that
> > someone else has an idea. And whatever you do, put the original author,
> > Eric in this case, on Cc.
> 
> This commit was supposed just able to detect that a Nand is ONFI
> 
> but instead it brake supported Nand
> 
> So Eric can fix it but I've not time to debug this before 1 month
> and the few platform that use ONFI are all busy
> 
> So as the commit just allow to detect a band is ONFI can we revert it
> 
> to keep non-ONFI Nand to work
> 
IIRC, I tested this patch on some i.MX board with non ONFI NAND flash
and that worked fine unless I made a mistake in my tests which is
always possible.

I've just sent a patch which may fix your problem, please give it a try
(only compile tested, not tested on real hardware).

Eric


_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "nand_base: detect more ONFI flash"

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 18:25 Wed 08 May     , Eric Bénard wrote:
> Hi Jean-Christophe,
> 
> Le Wed, 8 May 2013 15:30:24 +0800,
> Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> a écrit :
> 
> > 
> > On May 8, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > >> this brake the nand support on at91sam9x5ek
> > >> where we have a non compliant ONFI nand
> > >> NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xda (Hynix NAND 256MiB 3,3V 8-bit), 256MiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64
> > >> 
> > >> This reverts commit 4c2bdc8728016b3412523e3264651651fe752860.
> > > 
> > > Thank you for letting us know that this patch causes a regression for
> > > you. I this happens, please first try and fix the regression. If that
> > > doesn't work please tell us what about the original patch is so wrong
> > > that it needs to be reverted. With a good explanation it could be that
> > > someone else has an idea. And whatever you do, put the original author,
> > > Eric in this case, on Cc.
> > 
> > This commit was supposed just able to detect that a Nand is ONFI
> > 
> > but instead it brake supported Nand
> > 
> > So Eric can fix it but I've not time to debug this before 1 month
> > and the few platform that use ONFI are all busy
> > 
> > So as the commit just allow to detect a band is ONFI can we revert it
> > 
> > to keep non-ONFI Nand to work
> > 
> IIRC, I tested this patch on some i.MX board with non ONFI NAND flash
> and that worked fine unless I made a mistake in my tests which is
> always possible.
> 
> I've just sent a patch which may fix your problem, please give it a try
> (only compile tested, not tested on real hardware).
ok will try
> 
> Eric
> 

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re[2]: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "nand_base: detect more ONFI flash"

[Alexander Shiyan]

> > > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > >> this brake the nand support on at91sam9x5ek
> > >> where we have a non compliant ONFI nand
> > >> NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xda (Hynix NAND 256MiB 3,3V 8-bit), 256MiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64
> > >> 
> > >> This reverts commit 4c2bdc8728016b3412523e3264651651fe752860.
> > > 
> > > Thank you for letting us know that this patch causes a regression for
> > > you. I this happens, please first try and fix the regression. If that
> > > doesn't work please tell us what about the original patch is so wrong
> > > that it needs to be reverted. With a good explanation it could be that
> > > someone else has an idea. And whatever you do, put the original author,
> > > Eric in this case, on Cc.
> > 
> > This commit was supposed just able to detect that a Nand is ONFI
> > 
> > but instead it brake supported Nand
> > 
> > So Eric can fix it but I've not time to debug this before 1 month
> > and the few platform that use ONFI are all busy
> > 
> > So as the commit just allow to detect a band is ONFI can we revert it
> > 
> > to keep non-ONFI Nand to work
> > 
> IIRC, I tested this patch on some i.MX board with non ONFI NAND flash
> and that worked fine unless I made a mistake in my tests which is
> always possible.
> 
> I've just sent a patch which may fix your problem, please give it a try
> (only compile tested, not tested on real hardware).

What is a patch to fix this? I've got some errors after update to latest master tree:

Board: ConnectCore i.MX51
detected i.MX51 revision 3.0
mmu: Error: Can't request SDRAM region for ttb
Error: Cannot request SDRAM region for stack
Module Variant: i.MX515@600MHz, PHY, Accel (0x0b)
Module HW Rev : 03
Module Serial : B111156789
mc13xxx-spi mc13xxx-spi0: Found MC13892 ID: 0x0045d0 [Rev: 2.0a]
nand: ONFI flash detected ... nand: ONFI param page 0 valid
nand: Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xda (Micron MT29F2G08AAD), page size: 2048, OOB size: 64
BUG: failure at arch/arm/cpu/mmu.c:122/find_pte()!
BUG!
no stack data available

---
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "nand_base: detect more ONFI flash"

[Sascha Hauer]

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:46:13AM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > >> this brake the nand support on at91sam9x5ek
> > > >> where we have a non compliant ONFI nand
> > > >> NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xda (Hynix NAND 256MiB 3,3V 8-bit), 256MiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64
> > > >> 
> > > >> This reverts commit 4c2bdc8728016b3412523e3264651651fe752860.
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you for letting us know that this patch causes a regression for
> > > > you. I this happens, please first try and fix the regression. If that
> > > > doesn't work please tell us what about the original patch is so wrong
> > > > that it needs to be reverted. With a good explanation it could be that
> > > > someone else has an idea. And whatever you do, put the original author,
> > > > Eric in this case, on Cc.
> > > 
> > > This commit was supposed just able to detect that a Nand is ONFI
> > > 
> > > but instead it brake supported Nand
> > > 
> > > So Eric can fix it but I've not time to debug this before 1 month
> > > and the few platform that use ONFI are all busy
> > > 
> > > So as the commit just allow to detect a band is ONFI can we revert it
> > > 
> > > to keep non-ONFI Nand to work
> > > 
> > IIRC, I tested this patch on some i.MX board with non ONFI NAND flash
> > and that worked fine unless I made a mistake in my tests which is
> > always possible.
> > 
> > I've just sent a patch which may fix your problem, please give it a try
> > (only compile tested, not tested on real hardware).
> 
> What is a patch to fix this? I've got some errors after update to latest master tree:

This one:

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.barebox/8883

Eric, you mentioned you would send a final version of this patch. Could
you do this? master is still broken.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re[2]: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "nand_base: detect more ONFI flash"

[Alexander Shiyan]

> > > > > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > > >> this brake the nand support on at91sam9x5ek
> > > > >> where we have a non compliant ONFI nand
> > > > >> NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xda (Hynix NAND 256MiB 3,3V 8-bit), 256MiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64
> > > > >> 
> > > > >> This reverts commit 4c2bdc8728016b3412523e3264651651fe752860.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you for letting us know that this patch causes a regression for
> > > > > you. I this happens, please first try and fix the regression. If that
> > > > > doesn't work please tell us what about the original patch is so wrong
> > > > > that it needs to be reverted. With a good explanation it could be that
> > > > > someone else has an idea. And whatever you do, put the original author,
> > > > > Eric in this case, on Cc.
> > > > 
> > > > This commit was supposed just able to detect that a Nand is ONFI
> > > > 
> > > > but instead it brake supported Nand
> > > > 
> > > > So Eric can fix it but I've not time to debug this before 1 month
> > > > and the few platform that use ONFI are all busy
> > > > 
> > > > So as the commit just allow to detect a band is ONFI can we revert it
> > > > 
> > > > to keep non-ONFI Nand to work
> > > > 
> > > IIRC, I tested this patch on some i.MX board with non ONFI NAND flash
> > > and that worked fine unless I made a mistake in my tests which is
> > > always possible.
> > > 
> > > I've just sent a patch which may fix your problem, please give it a try
> > > (only compile tested, not tested on real hardware).
> > 
> > What is a patch to fix this? I've got some errors after update to latest master tree:
> 
> This one:
> 
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.barebox/8883
> 
> Eric, you mentioned you would send a final version of this patch. Could
> you do this? master is still broken.

Oh, sorry. It was other error. SDRAM size detection for this board is not
fully completed yet.

---
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Re[3]: [PATCH 1/1] Revert "nand_base: detect more ONFI flash"

[Alexander Shiyan]

> > > > > > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:21:39PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > > > >> this brake the nand support on at91sam9x5ek
> > > > > >> where we have a non compliant ONFI nand
> > > > > >> NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xda (Hynix NAND 256MiB 3,3V 8-bit), 256MiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 64
> > > > > >> 
> > > > > >> This reverts commit 4c2bdc8728016b3412523e3264651651fe752860.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thank you for letting us know that this patch causes a regression for
> > > > > > you. I this happens, please first try and fix the regression. If that
> > > > > > doesn't work please tell us what about the original patch is so wrong
> > > > > > that it needs to be reverted. With a good explanation it could be that
> > > > > > someone else has an idea. And whatever you do, put the original author,
> > > > > > Eric in this case, on Cc.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This commit was supposed just able to detect that a Nand is ONFI
> > > > > 
> > > > > but instead it brake supported Nand
> > > > > 
> > > > > So Eric can fix it but I've not time to debug this before 1 month
> > > > > and the few platform that use ONFI are all busy
> > > > > 
> > > > > So as the commit just allow to detect a band is ONFI can we revert it
> > > > > 
> > > > > to keep non-ONFI Nand to work
> > > > > 
> > > > IIRC, I tested this patch on some i.MX board with non ONFI NAND flash
> > > > and that worked fine unless I made a mistake in my tests which is
> > > > always possible.
> > > > 
> > > > I've just sent a patch which may fix your problem, please give it a try
> > > > (only compile tested, not tested on real hardware).
> > > 
> > > What is a patch to fix this? I've got some errors after update to latest master tree:
> > 
> > This one:
> > 
> > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.barebox/8883
> > 
> > Eric, you mentioned you would send a final version of this patch. Could
> > you do this? master is still broken.
> 
> Oh, sorry. It was other error. SDRAM size detection for this board is not
> fully completed yet.

I any case I have tested both my modules with this patch.
One module contain chip with ONFI, second chip w/o ONFI.

This is error of non-ONFI module without patch:
mc13xxx-spi mc13xxx-spi0: Found MC13892 ID: 0x0045d0 [Rev: 2.0a]
nand: NAND type unknown: ec,dc
nand: No NAND device found (-19)!
imx_nand imx_nand0: probe failed: No such device or address

Then with patch:
mc13xxx-spi mc13xxx-spi0: Found MC13892 ID: 0x0045d0 [Rev: 2.0a]
nand: Manufacturer ID: 0xec, Chip ID: 0xdc (Samsung NAND 512MiB 3,3V 8-bit), page size: 2048, OOB size: 64

With ONFI chip:
mc13xxx-spi mc13xxx-spi0: Found MC13892 ID: 0x0045d0 [Rev: 2.0a]
nand: ONFI flash detected ... nand: ONFI param page 0 valid
nand: Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xda (Micron MT29F2G08AAD), page size: 2048, OOB size: 64

So, now both works fine.

---
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox