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 <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Florian Fainelli <ffainelli@freebox.fr>
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
index c52ded3..5dd7ae4 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
@@ -2865,20 +2865,24 @@
/* 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));