Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] mtd:mxs:nand support oobsize bigger than 512

2015-01-21 Thread Marek Vasut
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 02:12:41 PM, Peng Fan wrote: Hi, Marek On 1/20/2015 7:03 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: On Friday, December 19, 2014 at 05:39:13 AM, 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

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] mtd:mxs:nand support oobsize bigger than 512

2015-01-20 Thread Marek Vasut
On Friday, December 19, 2014 at 05:39:13 AM, 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.

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] mtd:mxs:nand support oobsize bigger than 512

2015-01-20 Thread Peng Fan
Hi, Marek On 1/20/2015 7:03 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: On Friday, December 19, 2014 at 05:39:13 AM, 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

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] mtd:mxs:nand support oobsize bigger than 512

2015-01-19 Thread Peng Fan
Hi Marek, And this one. On 12/19/2014 12:39 PM, 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

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] mtd:mxs:nand support oobsize bigger than 512

2014-12-18 Thread Peng Fan
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.