From b7b1a29d94c17e4341856381bccb4d17495bea60 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Brian Norris Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 00:23:33 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] mtd: nand: rearrange ONFI revision checking, add ONFI 2.3 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 Acked-by: Florian Fainelli Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse --- drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 20 ++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c index c52ded31a12e..5dd7ae4e4b23 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c @@ -2865,20 +2865,24 @@ 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)); -- 2.30.2