From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from top.free-electrons.com ([176.31.233.9] helo=mail.free-electrons.com) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1VDw7m-00068c-Aq for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:42:26 +0000 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:41:53 +0200 From: Thomas Petazzoni To: Huang Shijie Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] About the SLC/MLC Message-ID: <20130826144153.568f2b1c@skate> In-Reply-To: <1377509808-29363-1-git-send-email-b32955@freescale.com> References: <1377509808-29363-1-git-send-email-b32955@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dear Huang Shijie, On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:36:38 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: > In current mtd code, the MTD_NANDFLASH is used to represent both the > SLC nand MLC(including the TLC). But we already have the MTD_MLCNANDFLASH > to stand for the MLC. What is worse is that the JFFS2 may run on the MLC > nand with current code. For the reason of READ/WRITE disturbance, the JFFS2 > should runs on the SLC only, Pardon the probably very silly question, but would you mind giving more details about why JFFS2 is not appropriate on MLC flashes? Is there anything that UBI/UBIFS does that JFFS2 isn't doing to take into account read/write disturbance? Thanks, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com