Re: [PATCH 3/3] mtd/nand : workaround for Freescale FCM to support large-page Nand chip

=E4=BA=8E 2011=E5=B9=B412=E6=9C=8815=E6=97=A5 04:15, Scott Wood =E5=86=99=
=E9=81=93:

On 12/14/2011 02:41 AM, LiuShuo wrote:

quoted

=E4=BA=8E 2011=E5=B9=B412=E6=9C=8813=E6=97=A5 10:46, LiuShuo =E5=86=99=

=E9=81=93:

quoted

quoted

=E4=BA=8E 2011=E5=B9=B412=E6=9C=8813=E6=97=A5 05:30, Scott Wood =E5=86=

=99=E9=81=93:

quoted

quoted

quoted

On 12/12/2011 03:19 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 15:15 -0600, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

NAND chips come from the factory with bad blocks marked at a certa=

in

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

offset into each page.  This offset is normally in the OOB area, b=

ut

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

since we change the layout from "4k data, 128 byte oob" to "2k
data, 64
byte oob, 2k data, 64 byte oob" the marker is no longer in the
oob.  On
first use we need to migrate the markers so that they are still in
the oob.

Ah, I see, thanks. Are you planning to implement in-kernel migratio=

n or

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

use a user-space tool?

That's the kind of answer I was hoping to get from Shuo. :-)

OK, I try to do this. Wait for a couple of days.

-LiuShuo

I found it's too complex to do the migration in Linux driver.

Maybe we can add a uboot command (e.g. nand bbmigrate) to do it, once =

is

quoted

enough.

Any reason not to do it automatically on the first U-Boot bad block
scan, if the flash isn't marked as already migrated?

Further discussion on the details of how to do it in U-Boot should move
to the U-Boot list.

quoted

And let user ensure it been completed before linux use the Nand flash =

chip.

I don't want to trust the user here.  It's too easy to skip it, and
things will appear to work, but have subtle problems.

quoted

Even if we don't do the migration, the bad block also can be marked as=

 bad

quoted

by wearing. So, do we really need to take much time to implement it ?
(code looks too complex.)

It is not acceptable to ignore factory bad block markers just because
some methods of using the flash may eventually detect an error (possibl=

y

after data is lost -- no guarantee that the badness is ECC-correctable)
and mark the block bad again.

If you don't feel up to the task, I can look at it, but won't have time
until January.

hi Scott,
It's really hard to me and I have much other works to do now. Thanks for=20
your help.

hi Artem,
Could this patch be applied now and we make a independent patch for  bad=20
block information
migration later?

-LiuShuo

-Scott