Bad assumption about ID field definition for Samsung NAND?

Brian Norris norris at
Fri Aug 20 13:42:40 EDT 2010

On 08/20/2010 06:43 AM, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:

> Okay, how do we proceed? Should I send a proper patch with the diff
> above? Or does anyone want to try and come up with a better fix...?

I vote for Tilman's patch. There's nothing unnecessarily ugly about it; 
it simply checks cell-type in order to decide whether we use Samsung's 
new "standard" for MLC or fall-back to the real standard. If anything, 
the existing code (checking ID length) is ugly. However, both checks 
seem necessary.


More information about the linux-mtd mailing list