On 11/16/2012 07:43:03 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
Hi Scott,
On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:01:03 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 11/16/2012 02:28:16 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
> > Also, I've noticed that some of the oobfree fields of the
> > nand_ecclayout
> > structures in mxc_nand.c are slightly different from what can be
> > found in Linux.
> > Any idea about which one is correct (if any)?
>
> Unless there's an obvious error such as overlap with ECC or a bad
> block
> marker, there isn't really a right answer (except to the extent that
> you're wasting bytes) -- but it's important that everyone agree. So
> the answer is basically, "which compatibility would it hurt more to
> break?"
>
> That said, the U-Boot ones make more sense to me in terms of not
> having
> strange missing bytes.
I've just found this commit, which explains what's going on:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git;a=commitdiff;h=8c1fd89a85f898384df02217c09c98c2f39b4832
I don't understand the bit about "on 16bit flashes it is on byte 11" --
I thought with 16-bit NAND the bad block marker was always at offset
zero, even on small-page NAND.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
