Bad assumption about ID field definition for Samsung NAND?

[Brian Norris]

On 08/19/2010 12:46 PM, Kevin Cernekee wrote:
> The code is right; the comment is wrong.

In that case, should we fix the comment and add the
check that Tilman mentioned previously? (below)
This looks safe and will at least eliminate a few weird
cases where Samsung SLC happen to have 6-byte ID strings
(such as the K9F4G08U0B in question).

I have another fix I will tack on in series to this; should
I include you as a "Signed-off-by", Tilman?

Brian

> @@ -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);