On May 8, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
