On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Alemao <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Anton Vorontsov > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 02:02:26PM -0200, Alemao wrote: >>> > I'm guessing that 1.2.0 was a BSP u-boot, that was not upstream. I don't >>> > think upstream 1.2.0 had UPM NAND support. >>> >>> You are right, there were no UPM support on U-boot-1.2.0. >>> I used patches sended by Anton from here: >>> >>> http://www.nabble.com/-PATCH-v2-0-5--mpc83xx%3A-MPC8360E-RDK-related-patches-td14717360.html#a14717487 >> >> There were known issues with this version (it only worked for the >> small page NANDs, IIRC). >> >> This is already fixed in the upstream U-Boot, via this patch set: >> >> http://www.nabble.com/-PATCH-v3-0-2--NAND-FSL-UPM-driver-update-td17667335.html >> > > It worked. Now here u-boot-1.2.0 supports NAND 512 and 1Gbit. > > The only problem is that kernel is complaining about empty spaces on > nand flash. It seems that u-boot when writing to nand is not using all > page/block space: > > [ 131.220948] Empty flash at 0x00033ff8 ends at 0x00034000 > [ 131.309014] Empty flash at 0x00063f68 ends at 0x00064000 > [ 131.354234] Empty flash at 0x00093f68 ends at 0x00094000 > ... > [ 139.266081] Empty flash at 0x0076bffc ends at 0x0076c000 > > With NAND 512 Gbits I usually got only one "Empty flash at..." > > Is this a known issue? Or should I patch nand core? I didnt see > relevant changes in drivers/mtd/nand/* that could cause this behavior > (based on U-Boot-1.3.4, U-Boot from head differs a lot) > > Thanks in advance, > > -- > Alemao >
Sorry, I didnt change the eraseblock size in mkfs.jffs2 command. My apologies, -- Alemao _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
