[(mtd-www),05/13] nand-data: remove incorrect/duplicate Numonyx NAND01G devices

The table includes two entries for each of the following Numonyx devices:
NAND01GR3B2B, NAND01GW3B2B, NAND01GR4B2B, NAND01GW4B2B.  This patch removes the
second set since it disagrees with the datasheets I have with regards to ONFI
V1.0 support and the READID data.

Signed-off-by: Angus Clark <angus.clark@st.com>
---
 nand-data/nanddata.csv |    4 ----
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Angus CLARK <angus.clark@st.com> wrote:
> The table includes two entries for each of the following Numonyx devices:
> NAND01GR3B2B, NAND01GW3B2B, NAND01GR4B2B, NAND01GW4B2B.  This patch removes the
> second set since it disagrees with the datasheets I have with regards to ONFI
> V1.0 support and the READID data.

This one's strange. I have 2 different data sheets for this part (both
Numonyx) and I have a sample NAND that's labeled "ST Micro
NAND01GW3B2C." The sample has ID 0x20F1001D, matching the row for
NAND01GW3B2B which you are deleting. The chip *is* ONFI-capable, and
yields a manufacturer/part string of "ST Micro NAND01GW3B2CN6."

So I'm not sure what to say. These data sheets are old enough I can't
find a public, updated version of the data sheet - only
company-internal copies of varying age - and everything is complicated
because ST Micro was bought by Numonyx, who rebranded some chips.

Unless you have a better suggestion, I might add a note instead of
deleting. Something like:

"ST/Numonyx chips may come with varying ID, ONFI capability"

Brian

Hi Brian,

On 12/07/2011 07:28 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Angus CLARK <angus.clark@st.com> wrote:
>> The table includes two entries for each of the following Numonyx devices:
>> NAND01GR3B2B, NAND01GW3B2B, NAND01GR4B2B, NAND01GW4B2B.  This patch removes the
>> second set since it disagrees with the datasheets I have with regards to ONFI
>> V1.0 support and the READID data.
> 
> This one's strange. I have 2 different data sheets for this part (both
> Numonyx) and I have a sample NAND that's labeled "ST Micro
> NAND01GW3B2C." The sample has ID 0x20F1001D, matching the row for
> NAND01GW3B2B which you are deleting. The chip *is* ONFI-capable, and
> yields a manufacturer/part string of "ST Micro NAND01GW3B2CN6."
> 

Yes, the "Rev C" version, NAND01GW3B2C, does support ONFI, and returns a READID
of 0x20F1001D. (Although interestingly, on my sample, it returns the "ONFI"
signature but not the parameter page - I will investigate further!).

I do not have an equivalent "Rev B" sample (ie NAND01GW3B2B), but all the
information I have suggests the "Rev B" family of devices does not support ONFI,
and the READID matches the "first" set of entries in the datasheet.

Perhaps this is a "Rev C" vs "Rev B" issue, in which case, I would suggest
applying the patch and maybe adding the "Rev C" versions to the table.  What do
you think?

Cheers,

Angus

> So I'm not sure what to say. These data sheets are old enough I can't
> find a public, updated version of the data sheet - only
> company-internal copies of varying age - and everything is complicated
> because ST Micro was bought by Numonyx, who rebranded some chips.
> 
> Unless you have a better suggestion, I might add a note instead of
> deleting. Something like:
> 
> "ST/Numonyx chips may come with varying ID, ONFI capability"
> 
> Brian
>

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Angus CLARK <angus.clark@st.com> wrote:
> On 12/07/2011 07:28 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Angus CLARK <angus.clark@st.com> wrote:
>>> The table includes two entries for each of the following Numonyx devices:
>>> NAND01GR3B2B, NAND01GW3B2B, NAND01GR4B2B, NAND01GW4B2B.  This patch removes the
>>> second set since it disagrees with the datasheets I have with regards to ONFI
>>> V1.0 support and the READID data.
>>
>> This one's strange. I have 2 different data sheets for this part (both
>> Numonyx) and I have a sample NAND that's labeled "ST Micro
>> NAND01GW3B2C." The sample has ID 0x20F1001D, matching the row for
>> NAND01GW3B2B which you are deleting. The chip *is* ONFI-capable, and
>> yields a manufacturer/part string of "ST Micro NAND01GW3B2CN6."
>>
>
> Yes, the "Rev C" version, NAND01GW3B2C, does support ONFI, and returns a READID
> of 0x20F1001D. (Although interestingly, on my sample, it returns the "ONFI"
> signature but not the parameter page - I will investigate further!).

My chip (branded ST) is rev. C and it returns the signature and
parameter page properly.

> I do not have an equivalent "Rev B" sample (ie NAND01GW3B2B), but all the
> information I have suggests the "Rev B" family of devices does not support ONFI,
> and the READID matches the "first" set of entries in the datasheet.
>
> Perhaps this is a "Rev C" vs "Rev B" issue, in which case, I would suggest
> applying the patch and maybe adding the "Rev C" versions to the table.  What do
> you think?

I don't think that's quite right. I'll explain:

(1) I have two datasheets for this part, with *different* revision
histories (they don't even have the same origin date)
(2) The first sheet includes Rev. B and Rev. C information, supposedly
(3) The second sheet includes Rev. C only
(4) The entries you deleted were from the second sheet and probably
should have been labeled Rev. C, not Rev. B - the datasheet was
inconsistent.
(5) My sample part (ST NAND01GW3B2C) returns proper ONFI signature and
parameter page
(6) My sample part (ST NAND01GW3B2C) reads an actual ID that matches
the string from the NAND01GW3B2B that you are deleting (this is a
mixup/typo; see comment (4))

I'm not sure how to reconcile the histories from (1). Perhaps my 1st
sheet represents *only* Rev. B and the second sheet represents *only*
Rev. C?

If my statements aren't clear enough, I'll send a sample patch that
would 'reconcile' things a bit.

BTW, what's the ID string from your sample?

Any thoughts on the ST vs. Numonyx naming? Are they entirely
interchangeable names for these chips, where you may find similar/same
parts with different manufacturers slapped on? (seeing as I have an ST
part that matches a Numonyx data sheet)

Brian

Hi Brian,

On 12/09/2011 09:14 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:04 AM, Angus CLARK <angus.clark@st.com> wrote:
>> On 12/07/2011 07:28 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Angus CLARK <angus.clark@st.com> wrote:
>>>> The table includes two entries for each of the following Numonyx devices:
>>>> NAND01GR3B2B, NAND01GW3B2B, NAND01GR4B2B, NAND01GW4B2B.  This patch removes the
>>>> second set since it disagrees with the datasheets I have with regards to ONFI
>>>> V1.0 support and the READID data.
>>>
>>> This one's strange. I have 2 different data sheets for this part (both
>>> Numonyx) and I have a sample NAND that's labeled "ST Micro
>>> NAND01GW3B2C." The sample has ID 0x20F1001D, matching the row for
>>> NAND01GW3B2B which you are deleting. The chip *is* ONFI-capable, and
>>> yields a manufacturer/part string of "ST Micro NAND01GW3B2CN6."
>>>
>>
>> Yes, the "Rev C" version, NAND01GW3B2C, does support ONFI, and returns a READID
>> of 0x20F1001D. (Although interestingly, on my sample, it returns the "ONFI"
>> signature but not the parameter page - I will investigate further!).
> 
> My chip (branded ST) is rev. C and it returns the signature and
> parameter page properly.
> 
>> I do not have an equivalent "Rev B" sample (ie NAND01GW3B2B), but all the
>> information I have suggests the "Rev B" family of devices does not support ONFI,
>> and the READID matches the "first" set of entries in the datasheet.
>>
>> Perhaps this is a "Rev C" vs "Rev B" issue, in which case, I would suggest
>> applying the patch and maybe adding the "Rev C" versions to the table.  What do
>> you think?
> 
> I don't think that's quite right. I'll explain:
> 
> (1) I have two datasheets for this part, with *different* revision
> histories (they don't even have the same origin date)
> (2) The first sheet includes Rev. B and Rev. C information, supposedly

Would you be able to email a copy of the datasheet that covers both NAND01GW3B2B
and NAND01GW3B2C devices?  I have several datasheets for each separately, but
none that covers both.

> (3) The second sheet includes Rev. C only
> (4) The entries you deleted were from the second sheet and probably
> should have been labeled Rev. C, not Rev. B - the datasheet was
> inconsistent.

Yes, that makes sense, and is what I was meant when I suggested it was a "Rev C"
vs "Rev B" issue.  I believe the data corresponds to NAND01GW3B2C rather than
NAND01GW3B2B.  My patch deleted this entry, since a correct NAND01GW3B2B already
existed, and I then suggested adding a correct entry for NAND01GW3B2C.  Perhaps
we just update the patch to rename the incorrect NAND01GW3B2B entry with
NAND01GW3B2C?

> (5) My sample part (ST NAND01GW3B2C) returns proper ONFI signature and
> parameter page
> (6) My sample part (ST NAND01GW3B2C) reads an actual ID that matches
> the string from the NAND01GW3B2B that you are deleting (this is a
> mixup/typo; see comment (4))
> 
> I'm not sure how to reconcile the histories from (1). Perhaps my 1st
> sheet represents *only* Rev. B and the second sheet represents *only*
> Rev. C?

That would be my guess, but anything is possible when it comes to NAND datasheets!

> 
> If my statements aren't clear enough, I'll send a sample patch that
> would 'reconcile' things a bit.
> 
> BTW, what's the ID string from your sample?
> 

My sample returns a READID of 0x20f1001d.  It returns the 'ONFI' signature from
READID to 0x20, but I still fail to get anything back from NAND_CMD_PARAM.  I
suspect it is a bug in my driver somewhere, but I haven't had a chance to look
into it further yet.

> Any thoughts on the ST vs. Numonyx naming? Are they entirely
> interchangeable names for these chips, where you may find similar/same
> parts with different manufacturers slapped on? (seeing as I have an ST
> part that matches a Numonyx data sheet)
> 

Yes, when Numonyx was spun-out from ST, the datasheets were re-branded but the
actual chip packages still used the ST logo, and the ST JEDEC ID (and ST fabs I
believe).  Numonyx has now been brought by Micron, and it seems Micron are only
offering "Numonyx" parts that do not clash with its own portfolio.

Cheers,

Angus