On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 11:26 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:18:27 -0500 > "Paulraj, Sandeep" <s-paul...@ti.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > This printk was added recently and results in ugly output on systems > > > with no NAND: > > > > > > NAND: nand_get_flash_type: unknown NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0x00, > > > Chip ID: 0x00 0 MiB > > > > > > instead of: > > > > > > NAND: 0 MiB > [snip] > > > if (!type) { > > > +#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_QUIET_TEST > > > printk(KERN_INFO "%s: unknown NAND device: Manufacturer ID:" > > > " 0x%02x, Chip ID: 0x%02x\n", __func__, > > > *maf_id, dev_id); > > > +#endif > > > return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); > > > } > > > > > Hmm, the current use of that seems to be suppressing warnings about > NAND that isn't present at all, not about NAND whose type we don't > recognize.
Well, that is precisely the case for new Beagle's and Overo's -- these boards do not have nand and output this error. So perhaps the real issue is that "no nand" is being reported as having a manufacturer id of 0x00 and device id of 0x00 ? > Perhaps we could instead suppress the warning only for probably-invalid > values such as 0x00 and 0xff, if that's how a missing NAND chip > manifests? That would also be acceptable to me. Is this your preferred fix? Steve _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot