Hi Chris,
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 16:52:54 +1200, Chris Packham
<chris.pack...@alliedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:
> Some Micron NAND chips (MT29F1G08ABAFAWP-ITE:F) report 00 00 for the
> revision number field of the ONFI parameter page. Rather than rejecting
> these outright assume ONFI version 1.0 if the revision number is 00 00.
>
Thanks for getting your hands into this.
> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.pack...@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
> ---
> At the moment I haven't qualified this check on anything, I should
> probably at least include vendor == MICRON.
The more I think about it the more I convince myself that this is not
needed. If the 4 first bytes are "ONFI", then the chip is ONFI...
Then what you do below is simple and readable and (sadly) probably
right.
>
> As far as I can tell revision number == 0 is not permitted by the ONFI
> spec but this wouldn't be the first time a vendor has ignored a spec. On
> the other hand maybe I'm reading the spec wrong and someone here will
> say "oh 0 means ...".
>
> drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> index 0cd3e216b95c..1691c7005ae4 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c
> @@ -5184,6 +5184,8 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct nand_chip
> *chip)
> chip->parameters.onfi.version = 20;
> else if (val & (1 << 1))
> chip->parameters.onfi.version = 10;
> + else if (val == 0)
> + chip->parameters.onfi.version = 10;
>
> if (!chip->parameters.onfi.version) {
> pr_info("unsupported ONFI version: %d\n", val);
Regards,
Miquèl
