Bad assumption about ID field definition for Samsung NAND?

[Brian Norris]

Hello,

I have similar problems on similar chips, however, I cannot determine 
that for sure; can you print out the full ID string (8 bytes) from 
nand_base?

This may be an issue with an unfortunate wraparound of the ID where it 
*should* give a 5-byte string, then wraparound to give the same ID 
again, but instead it gives a 6-byte string, then wraps around again. 
This would incorrectly classify this ID string under the detection 
scheme for new Samsung MLC flash instead of the old scheme. Your fix is 
safe, AFAIK, although there may be other Samsung MLC that still have 
unpredictable ID patterns that will cause this pattern. Maybe we can 
submit a similar patch to yours.

Thanks,
Brian

 > Hi,
 > on my GuruPlug, I was seeing lots of bad block errors for the NAND chip
 > when booting a 2.6.35 kernel. With earlier kernels (2.6.33, 2.6.34),
 > no bad blocks were reported. See below for the exact error messages.
 > Since _all_ of the first 128 blocks are claimed to be bad, and the NAND
 > chips appears to be working just fine, I suspect the kernel is lying.
 >
 > I bisected linux-2.6.35.y.git, and found that the kernel started
 > reporting bad blocks starting with this commit:
 > 426c457a3216fac74e mtd: nand: extend NAND flash detection to new MLC 
chips
 >
 > Patching nand_base.c with the following diff (thus restoring the
 > previously used behaviour) the kernel stops reporting bad blocks:
 >
 > @@ -2852,6 +2852,7 @@ static struct nand_flash_dev 
*nand_get_flash_type(struct mtd_info *mtd,
 >                  */
 >                 if (id_data[0] == id_data[6] && id_data[1] == 
id_data[7] &&
 >                                 id_data[0] == NAND_MFR_SAMSUNG &&
 > +                               (chip->cellinfo & 
NAND_CI_CELLTYPE_MSK) &&
 >                                 id_data[5] != 0x00) {
 >                         /* Calc pagesize */
 >                         mtd->writesize = 2048 << (extid & 0x03);
 >
 > I added a check for the MLC bit since
 > a) the commit message talks about MLC chips and
 > b) the NAND chip that the GuruPlug features is a Samsung K9F4G08U0B
 >    (which is SLC according to the part number decoder on samsung.com)
 >
 > I have no idea if that's the right fix though. Unfortunately I couldn't
 > find the data sheet for the K9F4G08U0B online, so I couldn't verify if
 > it uses the old field definition or the new one...
 >
 > Please CC me in your replies; I'm not subscribed to the list.
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Tilman
 >
 > Kernel messages:
 > Scanning device for bad blocks
 > Bad eraseblock 0 at 0x000000000000
 > Bad eraseblock 1 at 0x000000400000
 > [same for the following blocks]
 > Bad eraseblock 127 at 0x00001fc00000
 > Creating 3 MTD partitions on "orion_nand":
 > 0x000000000000-0x000000100000 : "u-boot"
 > mtd: partition "u-boot" doesn't end on an erase block -- force read-only
 > Moving partition 1: 0x000000100000 -> 0x000000400000
 > 0x000000400000-0x000000800000 : "uImage"
 > 0x000000800000-0x000020000000 : "root"