Bad assumption about ID field definition for Samsung NAND?

[Tilman Sauerbeck]

Kevin Cernekee [2010-08-19 20:29]:
> 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:
> >> @@ -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.

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...?

Regards,
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?