mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize

PATCH In review Kyungmin Park 3 participants 17 messages Jun 2, 2011 – Jun 8, 2011 Memory technology devices (MTD)

lore

Share & tools

lore

Kyungmin Park

author

2011-06-02 06:48 UTC #0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize

From: Kyungmin Park <[email protected]>

There's no case to use the subpage for 4KiB pagesize.

Signed-off-by Kyungmin Park <[email protected]>

---

drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c +3 -5

index ac9e959..337be7c 100644
@@ -4047,13 +4047,11 @@ int onenand_scan(struct mtd_info *mtd, int maxchips)
 	 */
 	switch (mtd->oobsize) {
 	case 128:
-		if (FLEXONENAND(this)) {
+		if (FLEXONENAND(this))
 			this->ecclayout = &flexonenand_oob_128;
-			mtd->subpage_sft = 0;
-		} else {
+		else
 			this->ecclayout = &onenand_oob_128;
-			mtd->subpage_sft = 2;
-		}
+		mtd->subpage_sft = 0;
 		break;
 	case 64:
 		this->ecclayout = &onenand_oob_64;

Artem Bityutskiy

2011-06-03 15:45 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 17 lines · Kyungmin Park

From: Kyungmin Park <[email protected]>
There's no case to use the subpage for 4KiB pagesize.
Signed-off-by Kyungmin Park <[email protected]>
---
drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c +1 -1
index ac9e959..337be7c 100644
@@ -4047,13 +4047,11 @@ int onenand_scan(struct mtd_info *mtd, int maxchips)
 	 */
 	switch (mtd->oobsize) {
 	case 128:
-		if (FLEXONENAND(this)) {
+		if (FLEXONENAND(this))
 			this->ecclayout = &flexonenand_oob_128;

drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c int onenand_scan(struct mtd_info *mtd, int maxchips) · line 4057

Quoted 10 lines

drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c +2 -4

-			mtd->subpage_sft = 0;
-		} else {
+		else
 			this->ecclayout = &onenand_oob_128;
-			mtd->subpage_sft = 2;
-		}
+		mtd->subpage_sft = 0;
 		break;
 	case 64:
 		this->ecclayout = &onenand_oob_64;

Roman, are you happy with this change?

Signature · 2 lines

Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

[email protected]

2011-06-06 09:42 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 35 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Artem Bityutskiy [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 03 June, 2011 18:42
To: Kyungmin Park; Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
Review
Quoted 7 lines · Kyungmin Park
From: Kyungmin Park <[email protected]>
There's no case to use the subpage for 4KiB pagesize.
Signed-off-by Kyungmin Park <[email protected]>
---
(quoted diff) +0 -0
b/drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c
drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c int onenand_scan(struct mtd_info
Quoted 4 lines
index ac9e959..337be7c 100644
drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c +0 -0
@@ -4047,13 +4047,11 @@ int onenand_scan(struct mtd_info 
*mtd, int maxchips)
Quoted 10 lines
drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c +2 -3
 	 */
 	switch (mtd->oobsize) {
 	case 128:
-		if (FLEXONENAND(this)) {
+		if (FLEXONENAND(this))
 			this->ecclayout = &flexonenand_oob_128;
-			mtd->subpage_sft = 0;
-		} else {
+		else
 			this->ecclayout = &onenand_oob_128;

Quoted 9 lines

drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c int onenand_scan(struct mtd_info *mtd, int maxchips) · line 4057
Quoted 6 lines
drivers/mtd/onenand/onenand_base.c +1 -2
-			mtd->subpage_sft = 2;
-		}
+		mtd->subpage_sft = 0;
 		break;
 	case 64:
 		this->ecclayout = &onenand_oob_64;
Roman, are you happy with this change?

What do mean by "no case to use the subpage"?

According to the spec KFM4G16Q4M-xEBx the Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (NOP) is equal to 4 -> subpage_sft=2.

Regards
Roman Tereshonkov

Quoted 5 lines

Signature · 2 lines

Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Artem Bityutskiy

2011-06-06 10:06 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:42 +0000, [email protected] wrote:

What do mean by "no case to use the subpage"?
According to the spec KFM4G16Q4M-xEBx the Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (NOP) is equal to 4 -> subpage_sft=2.

I thought this means "not supported by HW". But if this is supported, then I'm very surprised why would we remove it. I'm dropping this patch from my tree.

Signature · 2 lines

Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Artem Bityutskiy

2011-06-06 10:10 UTC #4 lore raw

Quoted 9 lines · Artem Bityutskiy

Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:42 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
What do mean by "no case to use the subpage"?
According to the spec KFM4G16Q4M-xEBx the Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (NOP) is equal to 4 -> subpage_sft=2.
I thought this means "not supported by HW". But if this is supported, then I'm very surprised why would we remove it. I'm dropping this patch from my tree.

OK, I actually did not put it to the l2 tree. And AFAICS this patch basically reverts commit 99b17c08bca2810f5910b3027f1b9d82edf7a576, but still leaves the data structures like onenand_oob_128.

So NACK for this patch - poor commit message, weird changes. I'm surprised to see this from kmpark.

Signature · 2 lines

Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Kyungmin Park

author

2011-06-06 23:56 UTC #5 lore raw

Quoted 6 lines · Artem Bityutskiy

Quoted 5 lines · Artem Bityutskiy
Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:42 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
What do mean by "no case to use the subpage"?
According to the spec KFM4G16Q4M-xEBx the Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (NOP) is equal to 4 -> subpage_sft=2.

It's really strange. Two OneNAND spec which has 4KiB pagesize say it has 1 NOP.

Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (Including main and spare area) NOP - - 1 cycles
(KFM4G16Q5M-xEBx)

that's reason I first set subpage_sft = 0 at original code.

The different thing between you and me is the page architecture number. yes 4 is the correct number but 5 also has the 4KiB pagesize. I think it's mean the manufacturing difference. can you check the which XXnm manufacturing for your devices?
In our case. it's 3Xnm. and previous is 4Xnm.

Quoted 11 lines

Quoted 4 lines
I thought this means "not supported by HW". But if this is supported, then I'm very surprised why would we remove it. I'm dropping this patch from my tree.
OK, I actually did not put it to the l2 tree. And AFAICS this patch basically reverts commit 99b17c08bca2810f5910b3027f1b9d82edf7a576, but still leaves the data structures like onenand_oob_128.
So NACK for this patch - poor commit message, weird changes. I'm surprised to see this from kmpark.

since we got some different OneNAND Spec. even though it has same 4KiB pagesize.

Thank you,
Kyungmin Park

Quoted 6 lines

--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

[email protected]

2011-06-07 09:55 UTC #6 lore raw

Quoted 31 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 02:56
To: [email protected]
Cc: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
Quoted 2 lines · Artem Bityutskiy
Quoted 1 line · Artem Bityutskiy
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:42 +0000,
Quoted 3 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
What do mean by "no case to use the subpage"?
According to the spec KFM4G16Q4M-xEBx the Number of
Partial Program Cycles in the page (NOP)
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
is equal to 4 -> subpage_sft=2.
It's really strange. Two OneNAND spec which has 4KiB pagesize say it has 1 NOP.
Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (Including main and spare area) NOP - - 1 cycles
(KFM4G16Q5M-xEBx)

Quoted 7 lines

that's reason I first set subpage_sft = 0 at original code.
The different thing between you and me is the page architecture number. yes 4 is the correct number but 5 also has the 4KiB pagesize. I think it's mean the manufacturing difference. can you check the which XXnm manufacturing for your devices?
In our case. it's 3Xnm. and previous is 4Xnm.

It seems the spec does not specify the nm-technology used.

Can we somehow use the DeviceID and VersionID registers to differ our chips?
For my case KFM4G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x0131, and KFM8G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0068, VersionID=0x0131.

BTW. Another spec KFM4G16Q4B also tells about NOP=4 cycles.

Quoted 28 lines

Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I thought this means "not supported by HW". But if this is
supported,
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
then I'm very surprised why would we remove it. I'm
dropping this patch
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
from my tree.
OK, I actually did not put it to the l2 tree. And AFAICS this patch basically reverts commit
99b17c08bca2810f5910b3027f1b9d82edf7a576, but
Quoted 4 lines
still leaves the data structures like onenand_oob_128.
So NACK for this patch - poor commit message, weird changes. I'm surprised to see this from kmpark.
since we got some different OneNAND Spec. even though it has same 4KiB pagesize.
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 6 lines
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Kyungmin Park

author

2011-06-07 10:10 UTC #7 lore raw

2011/6/7 <[email protected]>:

Quoted 41 lines

Quoted 31 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 02:56
To: [email protected]
Cc: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
Quoted 2 lines · Artem Bityutskiy
Quoted 1 line · Artem Bityutskiy
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:42 +0000,
Quoted 3 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
What do mean by "no case to use the subpage"?
According to the spec KFM4G16Q4M-xEBx the Number of
Partial Program Cycles in the page (NOP)
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
is equal to 4 -> subpage_sft=2.
It's really strange. Two OneNAND spec which has 4KiB pagesize say it has 1 NOP.
Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (Including main and spare area) NOP - - 1 cycles
(KFM4G16Q5M-xEBx)
Quoted 7 lines
that's reason I first set subpage_sft = 0 at original code.
The different thing between you and me is the page architecture number. yes 4 is the correct number but 5 also has the 4KiB pagesize. I think it's mean the manufacturing difference. can you check the which XXnm manufacturing for your devices?
In our case. it's 3Xnm. and previous is 4Xnm.

Quoted 8 lines

It seems the spec does not specify the nm-technology used.
Can we somehow use the DeviceID and VersionID registers to differ our chips?
For my case KFM4G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x0131, and KFM8G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0068, VersionID=0x0131.
BTW. Another spec KFM4G16Q4B also tells about NOP=4 cycles.

Here's my device register values.
005000ec 0800013e 01010200 00000000
DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x013e

The lower 4 bits of VersionID is different. even though VersionID is different. it's dangerous to detect the NOP 4 or not.

I sent the email to OneNAND person and share the result soon. (he's on business trip and return at June 9).

Thank you,
Kyungmin Park

Quoted 31 lines

Quoted 31 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
I thought this means "not supported by HW". But if this is
supported,
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
then I'm very surprised why would we remove it. I'm
dropping this patch
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
from my tree.
OK, I actually did not put it to the l2 tree. And AFAICS this patch basically reverts commit
99b17c08bca2810f5910b3027f1b9d82edf7a576, but
Quoted 4 lines
still leaves the data structures like onenand_oob_128.
So NACK for this patch - poor commit message, weird changes. I'm surprised to see this from kmpark.
since we got some different OneNAND Spec. even though it has same 4KiB pagesize.
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 6 lines
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Kyungmin Park

author

2011-06-08 00:59 UTC #8 lore raw

2011/6/7 Kyungmin Park <[email protected]>:

Quoted 55 lines

2011/6/7 <[email protected]>:
Quoted 41 lines
Quoted 31 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 02:56
To: [email protected]
Cc: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
Quoted 2 lines · Artem Bityutskiy
Quoted 1 line · Artem Bityutskiy
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:42 +0000,
Quoted 3 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
What do mean by "no case to use the subpage"?
According to the spec KFM4G16Q4M-xEBx the Number of
Partial Program Cycles in the page (NOP)
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
is equal to 4 -> subpage_sft=2.
It's really strange. Two OneNAND spec which has 4KiB pagesize say it has 1 NOP.
Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (Including main and spare area) NOP - - 1 cycles
(KFM4G16Q5M-xEBx)
Quoted 7 lines
that's reason I first set subpage_sft = 0 at original code.
The different thing between you and me is the page architecture number. yes 4 is the correct number but 5 also has the 4KiB pagesize. I think it's mean the manufacturing difference. can you check the which XXnm manufacturing for your devices?
In our case. it's 3Xnm. and previous is 4Xnm.
Quoted 8 lines
It seems the spec does not specify the nm-technology used.
Can we somehow use the DeviceID and VersionID registers to differ our chips?
For my case KFM4G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x0131, and KFM8G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0068, VersionID=0x0131.
BTW. Another spec KFM4G16Q4B also tells about NOP=4 cycles.
Here's my device register values.
005000ec 0800013e 01010200 00000000
DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x013e

Quoted 5 lines

The lower 4 bits of VersionID is different. even though VersionID is different. it's dangerous to detect the NOP 4 or not.
I sent the email to OneNAND person and share the result soon. (he's on business trip and return at June 9).

BOTH are right.
Now you have the NOP 4. but my chip has NOP 1. Memory division splits the chip for each customer.

then how to detect the NOP for similar chip? Using VersionID? or simply the minimum value?

Please give your opinions.

Thank you,
Kyungmin Park

Quoted 37 lines

Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 31 lines
Quoted 31 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
I thought this means "not supported by HW". But if this is
supported,
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
then I'm very surprised why would we remove it. I'm
dropping this patch
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
from my tree.
OK, I actually did not put it to the l2 tree. And AFAICS this patch basically reverts commit
99b17c08bca2810f5910b3027f1b9d82edf7a576, but
Quoted 4 lines
still leaves the data structures like onenand_oob_128.
So NACK for this patch - poor commit message, weird changes. I'm surprised to see this from kmpark.
since we got some different OneNAND Spec. even though it has same 4KiB pagesize.
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 6 lines
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Artem Bityutskiy

2011-06-08 10:57 UTC #9 lore raw

Hi,

Quoted 2 lines · Kyungmin Park

then how to detect the NOP for similar chip? Using VersionID? or simply the minimum value?

You are from Samsung, could you use your channels and ask your HW guys how to detect NOP? What is the proper way?

Signature · 2 lines

Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Kyungmin Park

author

2011-06-08 13:26 UTC #10 lore raw

Quoted 8 lines · Artem Bityutskiy

Hi,
Quoted 2 lines · Kyungmin Park
then how to detect the NOP for similar chip? Using VersionID? or simply the minimum value?
You are from Samsung, could you use your channels and ask your HW guys how to detect NOP? What is the proper way?

I really surprised when talk with H/W guy. He don't understand why the same codes are used for Samsung mobile and Nokia.
He said it can be distinguished from printed chip number at cover. not S/W.

That's reason. don't make a different version ID or others.

P.S., I'm working for Samsung Mobile.

Quoted 10 lines

--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

[email protected]

2011-06-08 09:58 UTC #11 lore raw

In reply to Kyungmin Park

Quoted 62 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 13:10
To: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
2011/6/7 <[email protected]>:
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 20 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 02:56
To: [email protected]
Cc: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
Quoted 2 lines · Artem Bityutskiy
Quoted 1 line · Artem Bityutskiy
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:42 +0000,
Quoted 2 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
What do mean by "no case to use the subpage"?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
According to the spec KFM4G16Q4M-xEBx the Number of
Partial Program Cycles in the page (NOP)
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
is equal to 4 -> subpage_sft=2.
It's really strange. Two OneNAND spec which has 4KiB pagesize say it has 1 NOP.
Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (Including main
and spare
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 10 lines
area) NOP - - 1 cycles
(KFM4G16Q5M-xEBx)
that's reason I first set subpage_sft = 0 at original code.
The different thing between you and me is the page architecture number. yes 4 is the correct number but 5 also has the 4KiB pagesize. I think it's mean the manufacturing difference. can you check the which XXnm manufacturing for your devices?
In our case. it's 3Xnm. and previous is 4Xnm.
It seems the spec does not specify the nm-technology used.
Can we somehow use the DeviceID and VersionID registers to differ our chips?
For my case KFM4G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x0131, and KFM8G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0068, VersionID=0x0131.

Quoted 5 lines

Quoted 1 line
BTW. Another spec KFM4G16Q4B also tells about NOP=4 cycles.
Here's my device register values.
005000ec 0800013e 01010200 00000000
DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x013e

Our difference is in Stepping field of the VersionId register:
0xe means "Version 1.0 (initial)", and 0x1 means "CS version 1.0".

Does anybody know what does "CS" mean in this context? Is it Customer SoC or something else?

How do different Stepping versions differ from each other?

Regards
Roman Tereshonkov

Quoted 43 lines

The lower 4 bits of VersionID is different. even though VersionID is different. it's dangerous to detect the NOP 4 or not.
I sent the email to OneNAND person and share the result soon. (he's on business trip and return at June 9).
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 31 lines
Quoted 31 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
I thought this means "not supported by HW". But if this is
supported,
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
then I'm very surprised why would we remove it. I'm
dropping this patch
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
from my tree.
OK, I actually did not put it to the l2 tree. And AFAICS this patch basically reverts commit
99b17c08bca2810f5910b3027f1b9d82edf7a576, but
Quoted 4 lines
still leaves the data structures like onenand_oob_128.
So NACK for this patch - poor commit message, weird changes. I'm surprised to see this from kmpark.
since we got some different OneNAND Spec. even though it has same 4KiB pagesize.
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 6 lines
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Kyungmin Park

author

2011-06-08 10:04 UTC #12 lore raw

2011/6/8 <[email protected]>:

Quoted 69 lines

Quoted 62 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 13:10
To: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
2011/6/7 <[email protected]>:
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 20 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 02:56
To: [email protected]
Cc: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
Quoted 2 lines · Artem Bityutskiy
Quoted 1 line · Artem Bityutskiy
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:42 +0000,
Quoted 2 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
What do mean by "no case to use the subpage"?
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
According to the spec KFM4G16Q4M-xEBx the Number of
Partial Program Cycles in the page (NOP)
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
is equal to 4 -> subpage_sft=2.
It's really strange. Two OneNAND spec which has 4KiB pagesize say it has 1 NOP.
Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (Including main
and spare
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 10 lines
area) NOP - - 1 cycles
(KFM4G16Q5M-xEBx)
that's reason I first set subpage_sft = 0 at original code.
The different thing between you and me is the page architecture number. yes 4 is the correct number but 5 also has the 4KiB pagesize. I think it's mean the manufacturing difference. can you check the which XXnm manufacturing for your devices?
In our case. it's 3Xnm. and previous is 4Xnm.
It seems the spec does not specify the nm-technology used.
Can we somehow use the DeviceID and VersionID registers to differ our chips?
For my case KFM4G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x0131, and KFM8G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0068, VersionID=0x0131.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
BTW. Another spec KFM4G16Q4B also tells about NOP=4 cycles.
Here's my device register values.
005000ec 0800013e 01010200 00000000
DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x013e

Quoted 4 lines

Our difference is in Stepping field of the VersionId register:
0xe means "Version 1.0 (initial)", and 0x1 means "CS version 1.0".
Does anybody know what does "CS" mean in this context? Is it Customer SoC or something else?

Consumer Sample.

but 0x013e is shipped widely. Nexus S also uses this chip. so it should be fixed at mainline.

Please see another patch. there's no way to detect the version ID even though it's ugly.

Thank you,
Kyungmin Park

Quoted 51 lines

How do different Stepping versions differ from each other?
Regards
Roman Tereshonkov
Quoted 43 lines
The lower 4 bits of VersionID is different. even though VersionID is different. it's dangerous to detect the NOP 4 or not.
I sent the email to OneNAND person and share the result soon. (he's on business trip and return at June 9).
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 31 lines
Quoted 31 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
I thought this means "not supported by HW". But if this is
supported,
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
then I'm very surprised why would we remove it. I'm
dropping this patch
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
from my tree.
OK, I actually did not put it to the l2 tree. And AFAICS this patch basically reverts commit
99b17c08bca2810f5910b3027f1b9d82edf7a576, but
Quoted 4 lines
still leaves the data structures like onenand_oob_128.
So NACK for this patch - poor commit message, weird changes. I'm surprised to see this from kmpark.
since we got some different OneNAND Spec. even though it has same 4KiB pagesize.
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 6 lines
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

[email protected]

2011-06-08 10:21 UTC #13 lore raw

Quoted 87 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 08 June, 2011 13:04
To: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
2011/6/8 <[email protected]>:
Quoted 41 lines
Quoted 41 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 13:10
To: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
2011/6/7 <[email protected]>:
Quoted 28 lines
Quoted 28 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 02:56
To: [email protected]
Cc: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
Quoted 2 lines · Artem Bityutskiy
Quoted 1 line · Artem Bityutskiy
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:42 +0000,
Quoted 3 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
What do mean by "no case to use the subpage"?
According to the spec KFM4G16Q4M-xEBx the Number of
Partial Program Cycles in the page (NOP)
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
is equal to 4 -> subpage_sft=2.
It's really strange. Two OneNAND spec which has 4KiB pagesize say it has 1 NOP.
Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (Including main
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
and spare
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
area) NOP - - 1 cycles
(KFM4G16Q5M-xEBx)
that's reason I first set subpage_sft = 0 at original code.
The different thing between you and me is the page architecture number. yes 4 is the correct number but 5 also has the
4KiB pagesize.
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I think it's mean the manufacturing difference. can you check the which XXnm manufacturing for your devices?
In our case. it's 3Xnm. and previous is 4Xnm.
It seems the spec does not specify the nm-technology used.
Can we somehow use the DeviceID and VersionID registers to differ our chips?
For my case KFM4G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x0131, and KFM8G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0068, VersionID=0x0131.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
BTW. Another spec KFM4G16Q4B also tells about NOP=4 cycles.
Here's my device register values.
005000ec 0800013e 01010200 00000000
DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x013e
Quoted 4 lines
Our difference is in Stepping field of the VersionId register:
0xe means "Version 1.0 (initial)", and 0x1 means "CS version 1.0".
Does anybody know what does "CS" mean in this context? Is it

Quoted 8 lines

Customer SoC or something else?
Consumer Sample.
but 0x013e is shipped widely. Nexus S also uses this chip. so it should be fixed at mainline.
Please see another patch. there's no way to detect the version ID even though it's ugly.

Yes. I looked the patch and it is ok for me.
But the last word is for maintainer.

Thanks
Roman Tereshonkov

Quoted 57 lines

Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 13 lines
How do different Stepping versions differ from each other?
Regards
Roman Tereshonkov
Quoted 5 lines
The lower 4 bits of VersionID is different. even though VersionID is different. it's dangerous to detect the NOP 4 or not.
I sent the email to OneNAND person and share the result
soon. (he's on
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
business trip and return at June 9).
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
I thought this means "not supported by HW". But if this is
supported,
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
then I'm very surprised why would we remove it. I'm
dropping this patch
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
from my tree.
OK, I actually did not put it to the l2 tree. And AFAICS
this patch
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 1 line
basically reverts commit
99b17c08bca2810f5910b3027f1b9d82edf7a576, but
Quoted 4 lines
still leaves the data structures like onenand_oob_128.
So NACK for this patch - poor commit message, weird changes. I'm surprised to see this from kmpark.
since we got some different OneNAND Spec. even though it has same 4KiB pagesize.
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 6 lines
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Kyungmin Park

author

2011-06-08 10:27 UTC #14 lore raw

2011/6/8 <[email protected]>:

Quoted 93 lines

Quoted 93 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 08 June, 2011 13:04
To: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
2011/6/8 <[email protected]>:
Quoted 41 lines
Quoted 41 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 13:10
To: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
2011/6/7 <[email protected]>:
Quoted 28 lines
Quoted 28 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 02:56
To: [email protected]
Cc: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
Quoted 2 lines · Artem Bityutskiy
Quoted 1 line · Artem Bityutskiy
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:42 +0000,
Quoted 3 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
What do mean by "no case to use the subpage"?
According to the spec KFM4G16Q4M-xEBx the Number of
Partial Program Cycles in the page (NOP)
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
is equal to 4 -> subpage_sft=2.
It's really strange. Two OneNAND spec which has 4KiB pagesize say it has 1 NOP.
Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (Including main
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
and spare
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
area) NOP - - 1 cycles
(KFM4G16Q5M-xEBx)
that's reason I first set subpage_sft = 0 at original code.
The different thing between you and me is the page architecture number. yes 4 is the correct number but 5 also has the
4KiB pagesize.
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I think it's mean the manufacturing difference. can you check the which XXnm manufacturing for your devices?
In our case. it's 3Xnm. and previous is 4Xnm.
It seems the spec does not specify the nm-technology used.
Can we somehow use the DeviceID and VersionID registers to differ our chips?
For my case KFM4G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x0131, and KFM8G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0068, VersionID=0x0131.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
BTW. Another spec KFM4G16Q4B also tells about NOP=4 cycles.
Here's my device register values.
005000ec 0800013e 01010200 00000000
DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x013e
Quoted 4 lines
Our difference is in Stepping field of the VersionId register:
0xe means "Version 1.0 (initial)", and 0x1 means "CS version 1.0".
Does anybody know what does "CS" mean in this context? Is it
Customer SoC or something else?
Consumer Sample.
but 0x013e is shipped widely. Nexus S also uses this chip. so it should be fixed at mainline.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 2 lines
Please see another patch. there's no way to detect the version ID even though it's ugly.
Yes. I looked the patch and it is ok for me.
But the last word is for maintainer.

Me(?) or Artem(?).
I heard the H/W engineer and there's no difference between Q4M and Q5M except the NOP.
and there's no way to detect. So uses the version ID as workaround.

Thank you,
Kyungmin Park

Quoted 62 lines

Thanks
Roman Tereshonkov
Quoted 57 lines
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 13 lines
How do different Stepping versions differ from each other?
Regards
Roman Tereshonkov
Quoted 5 lines
The lower 4 bits of VersionID is different. even though VersionID is different. it's dangerous to detect the NOP 4 or not.
I sent the email to OneNAND person and share the result
soon. (he's on
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
business trip and return at June 9).
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
I thought this means "not supported by HW". But if this is
supported,
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
then I'm very surprised why would we remove it. I'm
dropping this patch
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
from my tree.
OK, I actually did not put it to the l2 tree. And AFAICS
this patch
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 19 lines
Quoted 1 line
basically reverts commit
99b17c08bca2810f5910b3027f1b9d82edf7a576, but
Quoted 4 lines
still leaves the data structures like onenand_oob_128.
So NACK for this patch - poor commit message, weird changes. I'm surprised to see this from kmpark.
since we got some different OneNAND Spec. even though it has same 4KiB pagesize.
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 6 lines
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

[email protected]

2011-06-08 10:38 UTC #15 lore raw

Quoted 111 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 08 June, 2011 13:27
To: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
2011/6/8 <[email protected]>:
Quoted 86 lines
Quoted 86 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 08 June, 2011 13:04
To: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
2011/6/8 <[email protected]>:
Quoted 41 lines
Quoted 41 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 13:10
To: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki)
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
2011/6/7 <[email protected]>:
Quoted 28 lines
Quoted 28 lines
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext Kyungmin Park
Sent: 07 June, 2011 02:56
To: [email protected]
Cc: Tereshonkov Roman (Nokia-SD/Helsinki); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: OneNAND: Fix wrong subpage_sft at 4KiB pagesize
Quoted 2 lines · Artem Bityutskiy
Quoted 1 line · Artem Bityutskiy
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 09:42 +0000,
Quoted 3 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
What do mean by "no case to use the subpage"?
According to the spec KFM4G16Q4M-xEBx the Number of
Partial Program Cycles in the page (NOP)
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
is equal to 4 -> subpage_sft=2.
It's really strange. Two OneNAND spec which has 4KiB pagesize say it has 1 NOP.
Number of Partial Program Cycles in the page (Including main
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
and spare
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
area) NOP - - 1 cycles
(KFM4G16Q5M-xEBx)
that's reason I first set subpage_sft = 0 at original code.
The different thing between you and me is the page architecture number. yes 4 is the correct number but 5 also has the
4KiB pagesize.
Quoted 23 lines
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 13 lines
Quoted 3 lines
I think it's mean the manufacturing difference. can you check the which XXnm manufacturing for your devices?
In our case. it's 3Xnm. and previous is 4Xnm.
It seems the spec does not specify the nm-technology used.
Can we somehow use the DeviceID and VersionID registers to differ our chips?
For my case KFM4G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x0131, and KFM8G16Q4M DeviceID=0x0068, VersionID=0x0131.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
BTW. Another spec KFM4G16Q4B also tells about NOP=4 cycles.
Here's my device register values.
005000ec 0800013e 01010200 00000000
DeviceID=0x0050, VersionID=0x013e
Our difference is in Stepping field of the VersionId register:
0xe means "Version 1.0 (initial)", and 0x1 means "CS version 1.0".
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 1 line
Does anybody know what does "CS" mean in this context? Is it
Customer SoC or something else?
Consumer Sample.
but 0x013e is shipped widely. Nexus S also uses this chip. so it should be fixed at mainline.
Please see another patch. there's no way to detect the
version ID even
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
though it's ugly.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 2 lines
Yes. I looked the patch and it is ok for me.
But the last word is for maintainer.
Me(?) or Artem(?).
I heard the H/W engineer and there's no difference between Q4M and Q5M except the NOP.
and there's no way to detect. So uses the version ID as workaround.

If it is so what if we move the NOP definition to board specific domain. The board configuration should know what chip is used.
And if NOP is set there then use it otherwise some safe default value.

The last word I meant for Artem.

Thanks
Roman Tereshonkov

Quoted 68 lines

Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 18 lines
Thanks
Roman Tereshonkov
Quoted 13 lines
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 10 lines
How do different Stepping versions differ from each other?
Regards
Roman Tereshonkov
Quoted 2 lines
The lower 4 bits of VersionID is different. even though
VersionID is
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 21 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
different. it's dangerous to detect the NOP 4 or not.
I sent the email to OneNAND person and share the result
soon. (he's on
Quoted 17 lines
Quoted 17 lines
business trip and return at June 9).
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
I thought this means "not supported by HW". But if this is
supported,
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
then I'm very surprised why would we remove it. I'm
dropping this patch
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 1 line
from my tree.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
OK, I actually did not put it to the l2 tree. And AFAICS
this patch
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
basically reverts commit
99b17c08bca2810f5910b3027f1b9d82edf7a576, but
Quoted 3 lines
still leaves the data structures like onenand_oob_128.
So NACK for this patch - poor commit message, weird
changes. I'm
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 16 lines
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 15 lines
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 1 line
surprised to see this from kmpark.
since we got some different OneNAND Spec. even though it has same 4KiB pagesize.
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
Quoted 6 lines
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)

Artem Bityutskiy

2011-06-03 16:03 UTC #16 lore raw

In reply to Kyungmin Park

Quoted 5 lines · Kyungmin Park

From: Kyungmin Park <[email protected]>
There's no case to use the subpage for 4KiB pagesize.
Signed-off-by Kyungmin Park <[email protected]>

I think Roman was testing subpage support with 4KiB pages and it worked, but I'm not sure and I did not read the specs. Let's ask Roman.

Signature · 2 lines

Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)