All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Martin Kurbanov <mmkurbanov@sberdevices.ru>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	<kernel@sberdevices.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mtd: spinand: micron: fixing the offset for OOB
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 16:31:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230904163156.4bdb8c06@xps-13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <90a53eda-bbeb-dffa-0f90-6fd229f555e6@sberdevices.ru>

Hi Martin,

mmkurbanov@sberdevices.ru wrote on Mon, 4 Sep 2023 17:20:59 +0300:

> Hi Miquel,
> 
> On 24.08.2023 12:35, Martin Kurbanov wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 23.08.2023 14:39, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> mmkurbanov@sberdevices.ru wrote on Wed, 23 Aug 2023 14:33:57 +0300:
> >>
> >>> Hi Miquel,
> >>>
> >>> On 23.08.2023 11:41, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> >>>> Hi Martin,
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think the four bytes have any "bad block specific" meaning. In
> >>>> practice, the datasheet states:
> >>>>
> >>>> 	Value programmed for bad block at the first byte of spare
> >>>> 	area: 00h
> >>>>
> >>>> So only the first byte is used to mark the block bad, the rest is
> >>>> probably marked "reserved" for simplicity. I believe we should keep the
> >>>> current layout because it would otherwise break users for no real
> >>>> reason.  
> >>>
> >>> I agree with you that this can break the work of users who use OOB.
> >>> However, I believe it would be more appropriate to use an offset of 4,
> >>> as the micron chip can use all 4 bytes for additional data about the
> >>> bad block. So, there is a non-zero probability of losing OOB data in
> >>> the reserved area (2 bytes) when the hardware chip attempts to mark
> >>> the block as bad.
> >>
> >> Is this really a process the chip can do? Aren't bad blocks factory
> >> marked only?
> > 
> > Actually, there is my understanding, I’m not sure exactly.
> 
> I tested with an offset of 2, no read/write errors were detected
> (including read/write to OOB). But I don't have a flash chip with
> factory bad blocks yet, when I find such a flash, I will report the
> results.

Ok.

> Do I need to send the v3 of the patch with only first commit ("correct
> bitmask for ecc status")?

Yes please, with Frieder's comments fixed.

Thanks,
Miquèl

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To: Martin Kurbanov <mmkurbanov@sberdevices.ru>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	<kernel@sberdevices.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mtd: spinand: micron: fixing the offset for OOB
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 16:31:56 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230904163156.4bdb8c06@xps-13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <90a53eda-bbeb-dffa-0f90-6fd229f555e6@sberdevices.ru>

Hi Martin,

mmkurbanov@sberdevices.ru wrote on Mon, 4 Sep 2023 17:20:59 +0300:

> Hi Miquel,
> 
> On 24.08.2023 12:35, Martin Kurbanov wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 23.08.2023 14:39, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> mmkurbanov@sberdevices.ru wrote on Wed, 23 Aug 2023 14:33:57 +0300:
> >>
> >>> Hi Miquel,
> >>>
> >>> On 23.08.2023 11:41, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> >>>> Hi Martin,
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think the four bytes have any "bad block specific" meaning. In
> >>>> practice, the datasheet states:
> >>>>
> >>>> 	Value programmed for bad block at the first byte of spare
> >>>> 	area: 00h
> >>>>
> >>>> So only the first byte is used to mark the block bad, the rest is
> >>>> probably marked "reserved" for simplicity. I believe we should keep the
> >>>> current layout because it would otherwise break users for no real
> >>>> reason.  
> >>>
> >>> I agree with you that this can break the work of users who use OOB.
> >>> However, I believe it would be more appropriate to use an offset of 4,
> >>> as the micron chip can use all 4 bytes for additional data about the
> >>> bad block. So, there is a non-zero probability of losing OOB data in
> >>> the reserved area (2 bytes) when the hardware chip attempts to mark
> >>> the block as bad.
> >>
> >> Is this really a process the chip can do? Aren't bad blocks factory
> >> marked only?
> > 
> > Actually, there is my understanding, I’m not sure exactly.
> 
> I tested with an offset of 2, no read/write errors were detected
> (including read/write to OOB). But I don't have a flash chip with
> factory bad blocks yet, when I find such a flash, I will report the
> results.

Ok.

> Do I need to send the v3 of the patch with only first commit ("correct
> bitmask for ecc status")?

Yes please, with Frieder's comments fixed.

Thanks,
Miquèl

  reply	other threads:[~2023-09-04 14:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-22 12:25 [PATCH v2 0/2] mtd: spinand: micron: correct parameters Martin Kurbanov
2023-08-22 12:25 ` Martin Kurbanov
2023-08-22 12:25 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mtd: spinand: micron: correct bitmask for ecc status Martin Kurbanov
2023-08-22 12:25   ` Martin Kurbanov
2023-08-22 12:30   ` Frieder Schrempf
2023-08-22 12:30     ` Frieder Schrempf
2023-08-22 12:25 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mtd: spinand: micron: fixing the offset for OOB Martin Kurbanov
2023-08-22 12:25   ` Martin Kurbanov
2023-08-22 12:32   ` Frieder Schrempf
2023-08-22 12:32     ` Frieder Schrempf
2023-08-22 13:35   ` Miquel Raynal
2023-08-22 13:35     ` Miquel Raynal
2023-08-22 16:57     ` Martin Kurbanov
2023-08-22 16:57       ` Martin Kurbanov
2023-08-23  8:41       ` Miquel Raynal
2023-08-23  8:41         ` Miquel Raynal
2023-08-23 11:33         ` Martin Kurbanov
2023-08-23 11:33           ` Martin Kurbanov
2023-08-23 11:39           ` Miquel Raynal
2023-08-23 11:39             ` Miquel Raynal
2023-08-24  9:35             ` Martin Kurbanov
2023-08-24  9:35               ` Martin Kurbanov
2023-09-04 14:20               ` Martin Kurbanov
2023-09-04 14:20                 ` Martin Kurbanov
2023-09-04 14:31                 ` Miquel Raynal [this message]
2023-09-04 14:31                   ` Miquel Raynal

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20230904163156.4bdb8c06@xps-13 \
    --to=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
    --cc=kernel@sberdevices.ru \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=mmkurbanov@sberdevices.ru \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.