| Message ID | 1292142213-645-2-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | b7b1a29d94c17e4341856381bccb4d17495bea60 |
| Headers | show |
On Sunday 12 December 2010 09:23:33 Brian Norris wrote: > 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> > --- > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 20 ++++++++++++-------- > 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > index 38b5eb0..2237a87 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c > @@ -2872,20 +2872,24 @@ 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));
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c index 38b5eb0..2237a87 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c @@ -2872,20 +2872,24 @@ 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));
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> --- drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 20 ++++++++++++-------- 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)