On 02/04/2014 09:46 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 13:43 +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >> Hi Scott and others, >> >> I have a question regarding BBT position and number of blocks allocated >> for BBT. >> >> Did you face the issue with last 4 blocks broken in any NAND flash >> device since the default option in Linux/u-boot BBM is last 4 blocks? >> >> It doesn't mean that if the last 4 blocks are broken than the NAND flash >> device is broken too. >> Also I haven't seen any common binding for Linux kernel to change it. >> >> Has someone tried to improve this algorithm or process of storing BBT in a >> better way. >> For example just look for BBT from the end till any limit? > > I don't recall if I've ever tested it personally, but that sort of > scanning is already there. Have you seen a problem with it?
We have met with nand device which has broken last 4 blocks and u-boot and linux just scan last 4 blocks by default. In connection to Linux. Interesting is that there is no binding for extending scan blocks and this has to be done through driver properties. Thanks, Michal -- Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91 w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854 Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/ Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
