Hi Scott, Rostislav, On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 15:42:29 -0600 Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 13:40 +0200, Rostislav Lisovy wrote: > > Commit ff94bc40af3481d47546595ba73c136de6af6929 > > ("mtd, ubi, ubifs: resync with Linux-3.14") > > accidentally reverted part of the commit > > 13f0fd94e3cae6f8a0d9fba5d367e311edc8ebde > > ("NAND: Scan bad blocks lazily."). > > > > Reinstate the change as by commit > > fb49454b1b6c7c6e238ac3c0b1e302e73eb1a1ea > > ("nand: reinstate lazy bad block scanning") > > > > Signed-off-by: Rostislav Lisovy <lis...@merica.cz> > > --- > > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c | 10 +++++++--- > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > Thanks for catching this. > > Heiko, this is the sort of thing I was concerned about with the "resync > from scratch" approach. > I do not believe resync is a bad idea, of course we should be very careful not to break existing features. I recommend to surround this code with "#ifdef __UBOOT__ ... #endif" as we have done for the other parts. BTW, we attempt to probe NAND devices during the boot sequence just for displaying the device size, right? NAND: **** MiB If so, can we postpone the whole of nand_scan until we use it? I am not sure about this, though. Best Regards Masahiro Yamada _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot