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
