Bad assumption about ID field definition for Samsung NAND?

[Kevin Cernekee]

On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Brian Norris <norris at broadcom.com> wrote:
> 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)

To clarify - the comment in the code is correct, but the checkin
comment was inaccurate.

>> @@ -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);

This looks OK (at least for K9GAG08U0D).

I wonder if Samsung could provide some firm guidelines for when to use
the old style vs. the new style.