On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 16:08 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:I think not.ä 2013å03æ04æ 15:50, Artem Bityutskiy åé:OK, I guess for this one:On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 13:57 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:If i only add the oob size field. There will be two items with the sameThe current code uses the @id to store the device id(byte 1).I do not think you need to store the full array of ID's. Device ID's for
But if we use the 8 bytes id data as the keyword, and expand the @id
field to 8byte array,
the device id is the second byte now. All the added zeros are for the
all the 4 of above chips are different, which is enough to distinguish
between them.
The only thing you need to add is the OOB size field to 'struct
nand_flash_dev'.
Device ID in nand_flash_ids table,
one has oob_size, one does not have. such as:
{"NAND 8GIB 3,3V 8-bit", 0xDE, 0, 8192, 0, LP_OPTIONS},
{"NAND 8GIB 3,3V 8-bit", 0xDE, 0, 8192, 0, LP_OPTIONS, 0},
nand_decode_ext_id() will calculate the OOB size.
{"NAND 8GIB 3,3V 8-bit", 0xDE, 0, 8192, 0, LP_OPTIONS, 640}, //OOBAnd for this one 'nand_decode_ext_id()' will calculate it too, but
size is 640.
_afterwards_ we change OOB size to 640.
Does this sound sane?