On Fri, 2015-07-31 at 16:41 +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:25:00 +0200 > Michal Suchanek <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 31 July 2015 at 11:24, Boris Brezillon > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Hans, > > > > > > On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 10:36:43 +0200 > > > Hans de Goede <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On 31-07-15 02:47, Scott Wood wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 14:33 +0200, Piotr Zierhoffer wrote: > > > > > > +int nand_spl_load_image(uint32_t offs, unsigned int size, void > > > > > > *dest) > > > > > > +{ > > > > > > + void *current_dest; > > > > > > + uint32_t count; > > > > > > + uint32_t current_count; > > > > > > + uint32_t ecc_errors = 0; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + memset(dest, 0x0, size); /* clean destination memory */ > > > > > > + for (current_dest = dest; > > > > > > + current_dest < (dest + size); > > > > > > + current_dest += > > > > > > CONFIG_NAND_SUNXI_SPL_ECC_PAGE_SIZE) { > > > > > > + nand_read_page(offs, offs > > > > > > + < > > > > > > CONFIG_NAND_SUNXI_SPL_SYNDROME_PARTITIONS_END, > > > > > > + &ecc_errors); > > > > > > + count = current_dest - dest; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + if (size - count > > > > > > > CONFIG_NAND_SUNXI_SPL_ECC_PAGE_SIZE) > > > > > > + current_count = > > > > > > CONFIG_NAND_SUNXI_SPL_ECC_PAGE_SIZE; > > > > > > + else > > > > > > + current_count = size - count; > > > > > > + > > > > > > + memcpy(current_dest, > > > > > > + temp_buf, > > > > > > + current_count); > > > > > > + offs += CONFIG_NAND_SUNXI_SPL_ECC_PAGE_SIZE; > > > > > > + } > > > > > > + return ecc_errors ? -1 : 0; > > > > > > +} > > > > > > > > > > No bad block marker handling? > > > > > > > > The bootrom does not use bad block marker handling (and allwinner's > > > > own FTL does neither for the non boot area, the actually mess up > > > > things by writing metadata which looks like classic bad block > > > > markers). > > > > > > Hm, checking for bad block markers (and skipping bad blocks) is always a > > > good thing, even if it does not by itself guarantee that the data > > > stored in there are not corrupted. > > > > Not on Allwinner hardware. Allwinner tools write data to the nand > > which looks like bad block markers so skipping blocks which appear > > marked as bad will inevitably skip valid blocks on many (most ?) > > Allwinner devices.
So, how do you prevent the bad block check from happening in non-SPL NAND code? > First of all, that's not exactly true. The allwinner NAND layer (and > probably the tools allowing you to flash a new image) is actually > writing the appropriate good block pattern (0xff), but this pattern is > then randomized by the hardware randomizer, which makes it look like a > bad block (!= 0xff). > > The other aspect is, do we really have to support images flashed with > this tool? I mean, I'm flashing my images using fel and a standard > u-boot, and they generate perfectly valid images with valid bad block > markers. > > > > > Only in the case you soldered a new nand chip yourself and never used > > Allwinner tools with it will the bad block markers remain valid. This > > is overall very unlikely so it should not be something SPL handles. > > Here you're talking about the bad block markers 'corrupted' by the > libnand layer (or the flashing tool). > To restore valid bad block markers you just have to launch nand scrub > in u-boot. Are you talking about using scrub only on blocks that read as valid when unrandomized? Does the tool that writes these randomized images skip blocks that are marked bad? -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
