On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 05:48:47PM +0100, Ilko Iliev wrote:
> With this patch "nand erase clean" writes correctly the cleanmarkers.
> Without this patch "nand erase clean" fills the OOB with zeros which
> marks all blocks as bad.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ilko Iliev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c
> index 52b3d21..a601772 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c
> @@ -156,10 +156,19 @@ int nand_erase_opts(nand_info_t *meminfo, const
> nand_erase_options_t *opts)
> /* format for JFFS2 ? */
> if (opts->jffs2) {
>
> - chip->ops.len = chip->ops.ooblen = 64;
> + if ( chip->ecc.layout->oobfree->length <
> cleanmarker.totlen ) {
Patch is linewrapped. Also, no space after ( or before ).
Why must the cleanmarker fit in the first free segment?
> + memset(buf, 0xFF, sizeof(buf));
> + chip->ops.oobbuf = buf;
> + chip->ops.ooboffs = chip->badblockpos &
> ~0x01;
> + chip->ops.len = chip->ops.ooblen =
> meminfo->oobsize;
What if oobsize > 64 (as with 4k pages)? Why write anything at all if
you're not going to write the cleanmarker? Why badblockpos & ~1 (I know
existing code does it, but why)?
> + }
> + else {
} else {
> + chip->ops.oobbuf = (uint8_t *)&cleanmarker;
> + chip->ops.ooboffs =
> chip->ecc.layout->oobfree->offset;
> + chip->ops.len = chip->ops.ooblen =
> cleanmarker.totlen;
> + }
Set ooboffs to zero, and use MTD_OOB_AUTO.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
