1.02 versus 1.02s

[bloggs]

I've just been looking at the structure of the boot/recovery images posted by evilbobbins (1.02) and bobmcdermott (1.02s) and I notice that the two firmwares are using different pagesizes for the images. This would seem to imply that the hardware is different between these two machines, specifically that machines with 1.02 are using NAND chips with a 4k page size and devices with 1.02s (like my own) are using NAND chips with 8k page size. I could be wrong about this since, I guess, the NAND driver could be designed to handle any page size, but then why change the page size between builds?

RichardP's photograph of his 1.02s machine's innards (http://img132.imageshack.us/i/image13su.jpg/) shows a Samsung K9GAG08U0E NAND chip and a quick Google of this part number confirms that it's an 8k paged device. Has anyone with 1.02 had the courage to open their Scroll and noticed what NAND chip its using? Could it be a 4k paged memory?

It's a bit academic at the moment as I'm just trying to reconstruct a boot image for my own machine, but it could suggest that people need to be careful about the hardware compatibility of the Scrolls. In particular, I wouldn't go thinking that 1.02s, or any future release, is an "upgrade" that can be loaded onto any old Scroll. It also might pose a bit of a configuration control problem for any s/w mods we come up with that involve image building.

I guess this might also explain why some people have had problems loading some "upgrades" from SO's website onto their machines.

Just out of curiosity, could some kind soul with a 1.02 machine post the output from dmesg after a clean boot so that I can compare it to that from my machine? It might show up other hardware differences we should be careful about.

Eddie

[RichardP]

I dont believe they are interchangeable as the addressing is different; but saying that I dont know if the TCC hardware has a FTL that handles bad sectors or emulates a standard NOR flash.