Hi Boris, On 07/07/18 09:37, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 21:27:20 +0200 > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at bootlin.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:44:42 +1200 >> Chris Packham <chris.packham at alliedtelesis.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm looking at adding support for the Micron MT29F1G08ABAFAWP-ITE:F chip >> >> Hm, it's even worse than I thought. The model name does not include the >> -ITE suffix (E means ECC can't be disabled), which means we have no way >> to detect the version with forced on-die ECC. >> >> I see 2 solutions to this problem: >> 1/ Bean provides us a solution to reliably detect when ECC can be >> de-actived and when it can't >> 2/ We only ever expose 64 bytes of OOB to the user and consider that >> ECC can be disabled, even if it can't in reality >> > > After reading the doc again, I forgot one thing you can try before > deciding to go for option #2. > > 8th bit in byte 5 of READID's result encodes whether the on-die ECC > state (enabled or not). I remember we had a discussion with Bean where > he told us this was a runtime status reflecting the on-die ECC state, > which is crazy, since READID might return different values depending on > the NAND state, and most of the code in the core assumes READID > provides a fixed ID that encodes the chip characteristics/capabilities, > not its state. > > Anyway, if this bit is actually reflecting the on-die ECC state and > on-die cannot be disabled on your chip, it should stay at 1 even after > you have sent the SET_FEATURES(DISABLE_ECC) command. Let's hope this > works as I expect, otherwise we're back to option #2 until Bean suggest > something else. > I'm away from work this week so I don't have access to that system. But I can take a look when I get back. From memory though there was very little that you could tell from the id/params on this chip (FYI we've decided to use a chip from a different vendor for production).