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@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). ok will try > > Eric > _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
