On 11/16/2012 02:28:16 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
Also, I've noticed that some of the oobfree fields of the
nand_ecclayout
structures in mxc_nand.c are slightly different from what can be
found in Linux.
Any idea about which one is correct (if any)?
Unless there's an obvious error such as overlap with ECC or a bad block
marker, there isn't really a right answer (except to the extent that
you're wasting bytes) -- but it's important that everyone agree. So
the answer is basically, "which compatibility would it hurt more to
break?"
That said, the U-Boot ones make more sense to me in terms of not having
strange missing bytes.
This field does not even always start at offset 0 when it looks free
according
to the ECC info. Is this normal?
Yes. Bad block markers are at offset zero except on 8-bit 512b-page
chips.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
