Paul Fertser wrote: > Ok, i see it now. But then it's even more inconsistent and somewhat > defeats the purpose of marking worn-out blocks ;)
Yeah, the whole logic of it is flawed. A saner alternative that also allows for work-out blocks would be static partitions with a statistical guarantee that they contain enough good blocks. There's where this idea started: http://lists.openmoko.org/pipermail/openmoko-kernel/2008-April/002238.html However, switching to such a model on GTA02 would mean to rearrange partitions, which is messy at best. > Moreover, i > understand that the kernel marks worn-out blocks only in BBT, but does > NOR u-boot mark worn-out blocks in both BBT and OOB? If yes, then a > user risks to lose his rootfs by flashing the kernel or bootloader via > DFU. As far as I remember, u-boot doesn't mark worn-out blocks. >> Hmm, did they flash_eraseall /dev/mtd3 first ? > > They didn't. Argh :-( > The wiki has only one place where nandwrite is mentioned, and that is > http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Flashing_the_Neo_FreeRunner#Alternative:_using_nandwrite Oh dear. Somebody meant well, but ... :-( So this happened about three weeks ago. I've fixed it now. Hmm, now what do we do with the victims of this ... - Werner
