On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:16 +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > 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.
Could you be more specific about what sort of "driver property" you're talking about? AFAICT from glancing at the code, searching is the default unless the controller driver specifies NAND_BBT_ABSPAGE. In any case, this code comes straight from Linux, so you'll probably find people more familiar with this code on linux-mtd. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
