Re: Possible bug in onenand_base ?

2010-07-12 Thread Enric Balletbò i Serra
Hello, 2010/7/8 Artem Bityutskiy dedeki...@gmail.com: On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 12:11 +0200, Enric Balletbò i Serra wrote: Hello, 2010/7/8 Artem Bityutskiy dedeki...@gmail.com: On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:55 +0200, Enric Balletbò i Serra wrote: Hello, I made new tests regarding this issue.

Re: Possible bug in onenand_base ?

2010-07-08 Thread Enric Balletbò i Serra
Hello, I made new tests regarding this issue. Looks like the problem is reading from the OneNAND device. TEST 1 # modprobe mtd_pagetest dev=4 [ 126.505340] [ 126.506866] = [ 126.512756] mtd_pagetest: MTD device: 4 [ 126.520477] mtd_pagetest:

Re: Possible bug in onenand_base ?

2010-07-08 Thread Enric Balletbò i Serra
Hello, 2010/7/8 Artem Bityutskiy dedeki...@gmail.com: On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:55 +0200, Enric Balletbò i Serra wrote: Hello, I made new tests regarding this issue. Looks like the problem is reading from the OneNAND device. Did you try older kernel and then bisecting who is responsible for

Re: Possible bug in onenand_base ?

2010-07-08 Thread Artem Bityutskiy
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 12:11 +0200, Enric Balletbò i Serra wrote: Hello, 2010/7/8 Artem Bityutskiy dedeki...@gmail.com: On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:55 +0200, Enric Balletbò i Serra wrote: Hello, I made new tests regarding this issue. Looks like the problem is reading from the OneNAND

Re: Possible bug in onenand_base ?

2010-05-12 Thread Enric Balletbò i Serra
Hello, I have a bit of time to investigate more. I have two boards with two different OneNAND chips populated. The first one is a dual Die Plan 4-Gbit (2 dice of 2-Gbit) [ 26.406890] Muxed OneNAND(DDP) 512MB 1.8V 16-bit (0x58) [ 26.412170] OneNAND version = 0x0031 [ 26.415771] Chip

Re: Possible bug in onenand_base ?

2010-05-12 Thread Enric Balletbò i Serra
I answer to myself. DDP (dual die plane) not implies 'ONENAND_HAS_2PLANE'. A device with a single die can also have '2 planes'. I'm right ? Sorry for these newbie questions, I'm just introducing to OneNAND devices. Cheers, Enric 2010/5/12 Enric Balletbò i Serra eballe...@gmail.com: Hello,

Re: Possible bug in onenand_base ?

2010-05-06 Thread Enric Balletbò i Serra
Hi, 2010/5/6 Kyungmin Park kyungmin.p...@samsung.com: Hi, Can you add this statement at below the code? printk(%s[%d] page %d, %d, %d\n, __func__, __LINE__, page, (int) onenand_addr(this, block), ((int) addr this-page_shift) this-page_mask); Yes, With this code nandtest fails:

Re: Possible bug in onenand_base ?

2010-05-06 Thread Kyungmin Park
Hi, What's your chip version? maybe some mis-probe it seems to be probed at 4KiB pagesize OneNAND. Thank you, Kyungmin Park On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Enric Balletbò i Serra eballe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, 2010/5/6 Kyungmin Park kyungmin.p...@samsung.com: Hi, Can you add this

Re: Possible bug in onenand_base ?

2010-05-05 Thread Artem Bityutskiy
Probably Adrian could comment on this? On Fri, 2010-04-30 at 12:05 +0200, Enric Balletbò i Serra wrote: Hello all, After commit 5988af2319781bc8e0ce418affec4e09cfa77907 (mtd: Flex-OneNAND support) the onenand support for my device is broken. Before this commit when I run the nandtest

Possible bug in onenand_base ?

2010-04-30 Thread Enric Balletbò i Serra
Hello all, After commit 5988af2319781bc8e0ce418affec4e09cfa77907 (mtd: Flex-OneNAND support) the onenand support for my device is broken. Before this commit when I run the nandtest program all is ok --- # nandtest /dev/mtd3 ECC corrections: 0 ECC failures : 0 Bad blocks : 0 BBT blocks