Commit b7b1a29d authored Dec 12, 2010 by Brian Norris Committed by David Woodhouse Jan 06, 2011

mtd: nand: rearrange ONFI revision checking, add ONFI 2.3



In checking for the ONFI revision, the first conditional (for checking
"unsupported" ONFI) seems unnecessary.  All ONFI revisions should be
backwards-compatible; even if this is not the case on some newer ONFI
revision, it should simply fail the second version-checking if-else block
(i.e., the bit-fields for 1.0, 2.0, etc. would not be set to 1). Thus, we
move our "unsupported" condition after having checked each bit field.

Also, it's simple enough to add a condition for ONFI revision 2.3. Note
that this does *NOT* mean we handle all new features of ONFI versions
above 1.0.

Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <ffainelli@freebox.fr>
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>

parent 0b524fb9

drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c

+12 −8

Original line number	Diff line number	Diff line
		@@ -2865,20 +2865,24 @@ static int nand_flash_detect_onfi(struct mtd_info mtd, struct nand_chip chip,

		/* check version */
		val = le16_to_cpu(p->revision);
		if (val == 1 \|\| val > (1 << 4)) {
		printk(KERN_INFO "%s: unsupported ONFI version: %d\n",
		__func__, val);
		return 0;
		}

		if (val & (1 << 4))
		if (val & (1 << 5))
		chip->onfi_version = 23;
		else if (val & (1 << 4))
		chip->onfi_version = 22;
		else if (val & (1 << 3))
		chip->onfi_version = 21;
		else if (val & (1 << 2))
		chip->onfi_version = 20;
		else
		else if (val & (1 << 1))
		chip->onfi_version = 10;
		else
		chip->onfi_version = 0;

		if (!chip->onfi_version) {
		printk(KERN_INFO "%s: unsupported ONFI version: %d\n",
		__func__, val);
		return 0;
		}

		sanitize_string(p->manufacturer, sizeof(p->manufacturer));
		sanitize_string(p->model, sizeof(p->model));

Admin message