Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 May 2022 09:35:50 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: spinand: add support for detection with param page | From | Frieder Schrempf <> |
| |
Am 16.05.22 um 16:10 schrieb Chuanhong Guo: > Hi! > > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 3:38 PM Frieder Schrempf > <frieder.schrempf@kontron.de> wrote: >> >> Hi Chuanhong, >> >> Am 14.04.22 um 16:34 schrieb Chuanhong Guo: >>> SPI-NAND detection using chip ID isn't always reliable. >>> Here are two known cases: >>> 1. ESMT uses JEDEC ID from other vendors. This may collapse with future >>> chips. >>> 2. Winbond W25N01KV uses the exact same JEDEC ID as W25N01GV while >>> having completely different chip parameters. >> >> I think they share the same first byte of the JEDEC ID, but the second >> byte actually differs and would allow to differentiate between them, right? > > No. For the 128M version, all 3 bytes are the same between > W25N01GV and W25N01KV. > >> >> I have this patchset [1] that I didn't manage to send upstream yet which >> adds support for the W25N02KV. I added the second ID byte to detect them. >> >> Still your approach using the ONFI data is more flexible of course and >> probably a better way to handle this. I will see if I can find some time >> to add support for the W25N02KV based on your patches. > > Don't do that. I abandoned this patchset because I later found that > some early W25N01GV doesn't contain a parameter page at all, > which means detecting W25N01GV/KV using only the parameter > page is unreliable. > I think what Boris proposed earlier in v1 (use parameter page > just to distinguish the two chips) is the correct way to go. > > BTW I was making this patchset for a potential future ID conflict > between ESMT and GigaDevice, and I don't actually need to > deal with the W25N01GV/KV nonsense now, so I don't have a > plan for send a new version of this atm.
Ok, what a mess. Thanks for the explanations. I will try to send my original patches for supporting W25N02KV then.
| |