Bad assumption about ID field definition for Samsung NAND?

[Tilman Sauerbeck]

David Woodhouse [2010-08-20 20:53]:
> On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 10:42 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> That's for 2.6.36 and -stable (for 2.6.35), yes?

Yes.

> @@ -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);
> 
> Can I have a signed-off-by for it?

Signed-off-by: Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman at code-monkey.de>

Thanks,
Tilman

-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?