Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: omap: nand: Remove 0xFF's that prefixed 16bit NAND commands

2012-10-29 Thread Ivan Djelic
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:36:43PM +0100, Christopher Harvey wrote: In 16bit NAND mode the GPMC would send the command 0xNN as 0xFFNN instead of 0x00NN on the bus. The 0xFFs were actually uninitialized bits that were left unset in the GPMC command output register. The reason they weren't

Re: [PATCH v2] mtd: omap: nand: Remove 0xFF's that prefixed 16bit NAND commands

2012-10-29 Thread Christopher Harvey
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 02:49:03PM +0100, Ivan Djelic wrote: On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:36:43PM +0100, Christopher Harvey wrote: In 16bit NAND mode the GPMC would send the command 0xNN as 0xFFNN instead of 0x00NN on the bus. The 0xFFs were actually uninitialized bits that were left unset in

[PATCH v2] mtd: omap: nand: Remove 0xFF's that prefixed 16bit NAND commands

2012-10-26 Thread Christopher Harvey
In 16bit NAND mode the GPMC would send the command 0xNN as 0xFFNN instead of 0x00NN on the bus. The 0xFFs were actually uninitialized bits that were left unset in the GPMC command output register. The reason they weren't initialized in 16bit mode is that if the same code that writes to this

[PATCH v2] mtd: omap: nand: Remove 0xFF's that prefixed 16bit NAND commands

2012-10-26 Thread Christopher Harvey
In 16bit NAND mode the GPMC would send the command 0xNN as 0xFFNN instead of 0x00NN on the bus. The 0xFFs were actually uninitialized bits that were left unset in the GPMC command output register. The reason they weren't initialized in 16bit mode is that if the same code that writes to this