On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:09:27 +0900
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote:
> Hi Boris,
> 2016-11-28 1:24 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon
> > On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 03:06:14 +0900
> > Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masah...@socionext.com> wrote:
> >> Collect multi NAND fixups into a helper function instead of
> >> scattering them in denali_init().
> > Can you tell me more about this multi-NAND feature?
> > The core is already able to detect multi-die NAND chips in a generic
> > way,
> This is not the case.
> > but I fear this is something else, like "put two 8-bits chips on a
> > 16bits bus to emulate a single 16bits chip".
> Yes, it is.
> (I have never used this controller like that.
> But, I am pretty sure it is
> from the code and the
> Denali's User Guide mentions such usage.)
> Just in case, I will clearly rephrase the comment block like follows in v2:
> * Support for multi device:
> * When the IP configuration is x16 capable and two x8 chips are
> * connected in parallel, DEVICES_CONNECTED should be set to 2.
> * In this case, the core framework knows nothing about this fact,
> * so we should tell it the _logical_ pagesize and anything necessary.
BTW, you should also set the NAND_BUSWIDTH_16 flag in this case.
> > If that's a case, and this feature is actually used, then it's a bad
> > idea IMHO.
> > For example, how do you handle the case where one block is bad on a
> > chip but not on the other? And I fear this is not the only problem
> > with this approach :-/.
> As you expect, if one block is bad,
> the correspond block on the other chip can not be used.
Hm, last time I thought about this usage I found others things that
could cause problems, but I can't remember exactly what.
Anyway, if this feature is already used, let's keep it.