On 01/05/2012 02:59 AM, Holger Brunck wrote: > Hi Scott, > > On 01/04/2012 06:44 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> On 01/04/2012 09:32 AM, Holger Brunck wrote: >>> >>> Initial implementation for unsafe feature for biterror insertion on >>> NAND-Flash devices. The code flips single bits in the data block of the >>> flash to simulate single bit-errors. >>> Tested with Samsung K9F1G08U0D and Micron MT29F1G08ABADAWP on >>> km_kirkwood boards. >> >> Do we still need dedicated code for this now that we have the ability to >> do raw writes? >> > > to be able to do raw writes was very usefull for me to reproduce a bug in the > UBI layer in the past. Bitflips happen very rarely but they happen, and with > this code you are able to force this and see how other SW layer handle this. > Due > to the fact there was an empty implementation in the u-boot code for this I > thought it might be usefull for others too.
The biterr stub has been around since before we had raw writes. If we decide we don't need a separate biterr command, we should remove the stub. Anything the biterr command does should be possible with raw writes, so while having a dedicated command might be slightly more convenient, I don't think it's worth the extra code size, review/fix iterations, and maintenance. Does anyone else have a strong opinion on the matter? -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot