Hi Scott, On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:01:03 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > 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.
I've just found this commit, which explains what's going on: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git;a=commitdiff;h=8c1fd89a85f898384df02217c09c98c2f39b4832 It looks like Linux is correct here because each structure is used for both 8- and 16-bit NFs, which seem to have different locations for bad block markers. This fix is also missing from U-Boot: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git;a=commitdiff;h=6c49939869c20550512386610ece45aceb65e7f4 It would help to drop some of the pagesize_2k that are weirdly mixed with writesize. Best regards, Benoît _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
