On 02/13/2016 12:18 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 02:41 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 11:45:08 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 18:42 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> + /* sometimes people do not think about using the ECC, so check >>>> + * to see if we have an 0xff,0xff,0xff read ECC and then ignore >>>> + * the error, on the assumption that this is an un-eccd page. >>>> + */ >>> >>> Eww. I suppose I won't argue too loudly if Linux is doing the same >>> thing, but what if it's a corrupted blank page, or the ECC just happened >>> to turn out as all 0xff? It seems like there should at least be a >>> warning the first time this happens, and ideally it should be >>> configurable. >>> >>>> + if (read_ecc[0] == 0xff && read_ecc[1] == 0xff && read_ecc[2] >>>> == 0xff >>>> + /*&& info->platform->ignore_unset_ecc*/) >>>> >>>> return 0; >>> >>> So it looks like it is configurable in Linux, but you've commented it >>> out here. >>> >>>> @@ -221,6 +298,8 @@ int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *nand) >>>> >>>> nand->dev_ready = s3c24x0_dev_ready; >>>> >>>> + nand->chip_delay = 50; >>> >>> I'm not sure how this is related to the changes described in the >>> changelog... >> >> Can you collect the MTD patches which are applicable at least and drop this >> one? > > 4/10 is already merged. Which patches are you referring to that don't have > comments, still apply cleanly, and are patching a NAND file?
Most of this patchset. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
