Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] - fix nand erase clean problem

2008-10-28 Thread Ilko Iliev
Dear Scott, Scott Wood wrote: Ilko Iliev wrote: Why must the cleanmarker fit in the first free segment? The Linux NAND driver looks for the cleanmarkers at this place. AFAICT, it does a read using MTD_OOB_AUTO, which can span multiple free segments. Yes, but the current U-BOOT uses

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] - fix nand erase clean problem

2008-10-27 Thread Scott Wood
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 05:48:47PM +0100, Ilko Iliev wrote: With this patch nand erase clean writes correctly the cleanmarkers. Without this patch nand erase clean fills the OOB with zeros which marks all blocks as bad. Signed-off-by: Ilko Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] - fix nand erase clean problem

2008-10-27 Thread Ilko Iliev
Dear Scott, Scott Wood wrote: On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 05:48:47PM +0100, Ilko Iliev wrote: With this patch nand erase clean writes correctly the cleanmarkers. Without this patch nand erase clean fills the OOB with zeros which marks all blocks as bad. Signed-off-by: Ilko Iliev [EMAIL

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] - fix nand erase clean problem

2008-10-27 Thread Scott Wood
Ilko Iliev wrote: Why must the cleanmarker fit in the first free segment? The Linux NAND driver looks for the cleanmarkers at this place. AFAICT, it does a read using MTD_OOB_AUTO, which can span multiple free segments. What if oobsize 64 (as with 4k pages)? Why write anything at all

[U-Boot] [PATCH] - fix nand erase clean problem

2008-10-26 Thread Ilko Iliev
With this patch nand erase clean writes correctly the cleanmarkers. Without this patch nand erase clean fills the OOB with zeros which marks all blocks as bad. Signed-off-by: Ilko Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c | 27 +++ 1 files changed, 19