Dear Jurgen, thanks for the quick reply.
Im using JFFS2. Do you seem a better alternative compatible with OSELAS and busybox? If this issue could be solved easier with other format we could study the possibility. I am not sure if the problem, anyway, is related to the creation of the image. The differences between both chips are in the Programming time (tprog) parameter and in the number of Partial Program Cycles NOP. It seems to me that this parameters should be embeded in the nand driver of both kernel and busybox, but I have not enough knowledge of the secrets of both drivers. Do you remember any ocurrences of this parameters in any of the drivers? Best regards, Carlos On 11 November 2014 14:44, Juergen Borleis <j...@pengutronix.de> wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > On Tuesday 11 November 2014 12:37:59 Carlos Leyva Guerrero wrote: > > I am having problems with a new batch of mini2440 boards I have received > > from the manufacturer, the chip for NAND in this boards is K9K8G08U0E > SCB0. > > I am able of writing data to the board (i.e. write the bootloader > (busybox) > > and our linux image) but, as soon as i start using the board and filling > up > > the space, more and more problems appear, making the boot time unusable > > (>10 mins) due to MTD error messages. > > > > Previously, I have been working with boards with chips SAMSUNG 131 > > K9K8G08UOB PIB0 and K9K8G08OUOD SCB0 with no problem, same image, same > > bootloader. > > > > I have been able to locate a note regarding differences in the chips: > > > http://www.phytec.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pictures/Support/LPN-134e_1.pdf > > > > Are you aware of this situation? > > No. My test systems are coming with 128 MiB and 256 MiB NANDs. > > > Have been it solved in latest OSELAS releases? > > Don't know, due to the lack of hardware. > > > If not, could you please give some guidance in the solution of this > issue? > > Don't know yet. You are still using JFFS2? I didn't find a way to > configure it > for a different sub page size yet. > > > I'm stuck with old kernels because we could say the boards are in > > "production stage" so no big changes should be performed in order to > avoid > > further problems and because in later kernel versions, as far as I > > remember, new issues arose as Sound not working. > > Seems not a matter of the kernel. More a matter how you create your flash > image. But maybe also a matter of the kernel, to let it know the > requirements > for the NAND memory have changed. > > > Please let me know if any one can provide some light. > > No system here to test it. Just guessed what could be done. > > Regards, > Juergen > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Juergen Borleis > | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ > | >
