Hi Bean,
> I encounter one question as below when I reply the email of linux-mtd, but If
> I reply other mail list
> Such as scsi mail list, mmc mail list, no any problem. Do you know why?
>
>
> Your mail to 'linux-mtd' with the subject
>
> Re: [PATCH v6 0/
Hi Bean,
> I encounter one question as below when I reply the email of linux-mtd, but If
> I reply other mail list
> Such as scsi mail list, mmc mail list, no any problem. Do you know why?
>
>
> Your mail to 'linux-mtd' with the subject
>
> Re: [PATCH v6 0/
ch as scsi mail list, mmc mail list, no any problem. Do you know why?
Your mail to 'linux-mtd' with the subject
Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] mtd: rawnand: support MT29F1G08ABAFAWP-ITE:F
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Message has a su
ch as scsi mail list, mmc mail list, no any problem. Do you know why?
Your mail to 'linux-mtd' with the subject
Re: [PATCH v6 0/6] mtd: rawnand: support MT29F1G08ABAFAWP-ITE:F
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Message has a su
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:40:08 +
"Bean Huo (beanhuo)" wrote:
> Hi, Boris
> >>
> >> Okay, I think we already had this discussion, but I'm asking it again.
> >> What are the possible values for that field and what do they mean?
> >
> >Still, it's not clear to me what "Internal ECC level"
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 11:40:08 +
"Bean Huo (beanhuo)" wrote:
> Hi, Boris
> >>
> >> Okay, I think we already had this discussion, but I'm asking it again.
> >> What are the possible values for that field and what do they mean?
> >
> >Still, it's not clear to me what "Internal ECC level"
Hi, Boris
>>
>> Okay, I think we already had this discussion, but I'm asking it again.
>> What are the possible values for that field and what do they mean?
>
>Still, it's not clear to me what "Internal ECC level" means. It seems that NAND
>chips having on-die ECC have this field set to 10b
Hi, Boris
>>
>> Okay, I think we already had this discussion, but I'm asking it again.
>> What are the possible values for that field and what do they mean?
>
>Still, it's not clear to me what "Internal ECC level" means. It seems that NAND
>chips having on-die ECC have this field set to 10b
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 18:31:24 +0200
Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Bean,
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:54:11 +
> "Bean Huo (beanhuo)" wrote:
>
> > Hi, Boris and Chris
> >
> > >>
> > >> I see 2 solutions to this problem:
> > >> 1/ Bean provides us a solution to reliably detect when ECC can be
>
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 18:31:24 +0200
Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Bean,
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:54:11 +
> "Bean Huo (beanhuo)" wrote:
>
> > Hi, Boris and Chris
> >
> > >>
> > >> I see 2 solutions to this problem:
> > >> 1/ Bean provides us a solution to reliably detect when ECC can be
>
Hi Bean,
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:54:11 +
"Bean Huo (beanhuo)" wrote:
> Hi, Boris and Chris
>
> >>
> >> I see 2 solutions to this problem:
> >> 1/ Bean provides us a solution to reliably detect when ECC can be
> >>de-actived and when it can't
> >> 2/ We only ever expose 64 bytes of OOB to
Hi Bean,
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:54:11 +
"Bean Huo (beanhuo)" wrote:
> Hi, Boris and Chris
>
> >>
> >> I see 2 solutions to this problem:
> >> 1/ Bean provides us a solution to reliably detect when ECC can be
> >>de-actived and when it can't
> >> 2/ We only ever expose 64 bytes of OOB to
Hi, Boris and Chris
>>
>> I see 2 solutions to this problem:
>> 1/ Bean provides us a solution to reliably detect when ECC can be
>>de-actived and when it can't
>> 2/ We only ever expose 64 bytes of OOB to the user and consider that
>>ECC can be disabled, even if it can't in reality
>>
>
Hi, Boris and Chris
>>
>> I see 2 solutions to this problem:
>> 1/ Bean provides us a solution to reliably detect when ECC can be
>>de-actived and when it can't
>> 2/ We only ever expose 64 bytes of OOB to the user and consider that
>>ECC can be disabled, even if it can't in reality
>>
>
Hi Boris,
On 07/07/18 09:37, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 21:27:20 +0200
> Boris Brezillon wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:44:42 +1200
>> Chris Packham wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm looking at adding support for the Micron MT29F1G08ABAFAWP-ITE:F chip
>>
>> Hm, it's even worse
Hi Boris,
On 07/07/18 09:37, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 21:27:20 +0200
> Boris Brezillon wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:44:42 +1200
>> Chris Packham wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm looking at adding support for the Micron MT29F1G08ABAFAWP-ITE:F chip
>>
>> Hm, it's even worse
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 21:27:20 +0200
Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:44:42 +1200
> Chris Packham wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm looking at adding support for the Micron MT29F1G08ABAFAWP-ITE:F chip
>
> Hm, it's even worse than I thought. The model name does not include the
> -ITE
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 21:27:20 +0200
Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:44:42 +1200
> Chris Packham wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm looking at adding support for the Micron MT29F1G08ABAFAWP-ITE:F chip
>
> Hm, it's even worse than I thought. The model name does not include the
> -ITE
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:44:42 +1200
Chris Packham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at adding support for the Micron MT29F1G08ABAFAWP-ITE:F chip
Hm, it's even worse than I thought. The model name does not include the
-ITE suffix (E means ECC can't be disabled), which means we have no way
to detect
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:44:42 +1200
Chris Packham wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at adding support for the Micron MT29F1G08ABAFAWP-ITE:F chip
Hm, it's even worse than I thought. The model name does not include the
-ITE suffix (E means ECC can't be disabled), which means we have no way
to detect
Hi Chris,
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:44:42 +1200, Chris Packham
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at adding support for the Micron MT29F1G08ABAFAWP-ITE:F chip
> to one of our boards which uses the Marvell NFCv2 controller.
>
> This particular chip is a bit odd in that the datasheet states support
>
Hi Chris,
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018 10:44:42 +1200, Chris Packham
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at adding support for the Micron MT29F1G08ABAFAWP-ITE:F chip
> to one of our boards which uses the Marvell NFCv2 controller.
>
> This particular chip is a bit odd in that the datasheet states support
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
