On Mon, 2015-08-10 at 09:17 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
Hi Scott,
Do you have plan to pick the 3 patches?
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/498050/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/498049/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/498048/
Yes.
-Scott
Hi Scott,
Do you have plan to pick the 3 patches?
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/498050/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/498049/
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/498048/
If not, then I prefer these 3 patches can go throught i.mx tree.
Thanks,
Peng.
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:18:38AM
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 09:36:45PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 09:15 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:07:50PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 16:15 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
If ecc chunk data size is 512 and oobsize is bigger than 512, there is
On Saturday, August 01, 2015 at 08:32:07 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 17:18 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Saturday, August 01, 2015 at 07:56:39 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 09:36:45PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 09:15 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 17:18 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Saturday, August 01, 2015 at 07:56:39 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 09:36:45PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 09:15 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:07:50PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Sat, Aug 01, 2015 at 01:54:48PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 20:38 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Saturday, August 01, 2015 at 08:32:07 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 17:18 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Saturday, August 01, 2015 at 07:56:39 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 20:38 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Saturday, August 01, 2015 at 08:32:07 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 17:18 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Saturday, August 01, 2015 at 07:56:39 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 09:36:45PM -0500, Scott Wood
On Saturday, August 01, 2015 at 07:56:39 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 09:36:45PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 09:15 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:07:50PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 16:15 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
If
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:07:50PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 16:15 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
If ecc chunk data size is 512 and oobsize is bigger than 512, there is
a chance that block_mark_bit_offset conflicts with bch ecc area.
The following graph is modified from kernel
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Peng Fan peng@freescale.com wrote:
If ecc chunk data size is 512 and oobsize is bigger than 512, there is
a chance that block_mark_bit_offset conflicts with bch ecc area.
The following graph is modified from kernel gpmi-nand.c driver with
each data block
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 16:15 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
If ecc chunk data size is 512 and oobsize is bigger than 512, there is
a chance that block_mark_bit_offset conflicts with bch ecc area.
The following graph is modified from kernel gpmi-nand.c driver with
each data block 512 bytes. We can see
On Sat, 2015-08-01 at 09:15 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:07:50PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-21 at 16:15 +0800, Peng Fan wrote:
If ecc chunk data size is 512 and oobsize is bigger than 512, there is
a chance that block_mark_bit_offset conflicts with bch
If ecc chunk data size is 512 and oobsize is bigger than 512, there is
a chance that block_mark_bit_offset conflicts with bch ecc area.
The following graph is modified from kernel gpmi-nand.c driver with
each data block 512 bytes. We can see that Block Mark conflicts with
ecc area from bch view.
13 matches
Mail list logo
