Hi Jean-Christophe, Le Wed, 8 May 2013 15:30:24 +0800, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > 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 > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
