[PATCH (mtd-www) 02/13] nand-data: updates to S30ML-P devices

[Brian Norris]

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Angus CLARK <angus.clark at st.com> wrote:
> On 12/07/2011 06:49 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Angus CLARK <angus.clark at st.com> wrote:
>> Expanding the names is probably good, but I don't really like the
>> "-FI{00,50}" piece. There are a few places where I used a wildcard in
>> the table to represent "don't care" characters. I think a lower-case
>> `x' might make sense, for example:
>>
>> S30ML512P30-FIx0
>> S30ML512P50-FIx1
>> S30ML256P30-FIx0
>> ...
>>
>
> Yes, agreed.  Will update the patch (and see comments below).

OK. I will recommend lowercase 'x', since I use that already, since
some datasheets use 'X' or 'x', and since it doesn't conflict with
other potential uses for '-' in the chip name.

> The datasheet I have is Rev 3.0 (April 8, 2008).  According to the revision
> history, id_data[4] was updated in Rev 2.0.  Would this fit your datasheet?

Yes, my sheet is Rev 01 (Dec 14, 2006), so it's probably out of date.
I'll Ack the 'id_data[4] = 0x10'

> id_data[2] is 0x01 for the "ECC-free/0% bad blocks" device, and 0x00 for the
> "ECC required/2% bad blocks" model.  This "Notes" column already mentions this.
>
>> Anyway, it may be apparent by now that I don't actually have a sample
>> of this chip myself. I'll go with whoever has a current data sheet
>> and/or actual chip.
>
> I haven't tested one myself either - I will see if we have any samples lying
> around, but I suspect not...

No problem. We do have the actual ID string from Gernot which confirms
your change.

Brian