From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: maramaopercheseimorto@gmail.com (Alberto Panizzo)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:19:13 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] mx31pdk: Add NAND support
In-Reply-To: <210155.75899.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <210155.75899.qm@web51001.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1267136353.2810.4.camel@realization>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Fabio,
On gio, 2010-02-25 at 13:59 -0800, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Alberto,
> 
> --- On Thu, 2/25/10, Alberto Panizzo <maramaopercheseimorto@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Alberto Panizzo <maramaopercheseimorto@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] mx31pdk: Add NAND support
> > To: "Fabio Estevam" <fabioestevam@yahoo.com>
> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org, s.hauer at pengutronix.de
> > Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 9:12 AM
> > Hi Fabio,
> > 
> > On mer, 2010-02-24 at 16:58 -0800, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> > > Add NAND support to MX31PDK board.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@freescale.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/mach-mx3/mach-mx31_3ds.c |   
> > 7 +++++++
> > >  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0
> > deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mx3/mach-mx31_3ds.c
> > b/arch/arm/mach-mx3/mach-mx31_3ds.c
> > > index b88c18a..2d78754 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-mx3/mach-mx31_3ds.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mx3/mach-mx31_3ds.c
> > > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> > >  #include <mach/board-mx31pdk.h>
> > >  #include <mach/imx-uart.h>
> > >  #include <mach/iomux-mx3.h>
> > > +#include <mach/mxc_nand.h>
> > >  #include "devices.h"
> > >  
> > >  /*!
> > > @@ -80,6 +81,11 @@ static struct resource
> > smsc911x_resources[] = {
> > >      },
> > >  };
> > >  
> > > +static struct mxc_nand_platform_data
> > mx31pdk_nand_board_info = {
> > > +    .width = 1,
> > > +    .hw_ecc = 1,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > 
> > Are you sure that this works? Don't you see a lot of Bad
> > blocks reports
> > in boot messages?
> 
> I followed the same approach used on other i.MX boards. This is what I see:
> ...
> NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xec, Chip ID: 0xaa (Samsung NAND 256MiB 1,8V 8-bit)                                                                              
> Scanning device for bad blocks                                                  
> Bad eraseblock 42 at 0x000000540000                                             
> Bad eraseblock 125 at 0x000000fa0000                                            
> Bad eraseblock 887 at 0x000006ee0000                                            
> Bad eraseblock 1750 at 0x00000dac0000                                           
> Bad eraseblock 2046 at 0x00000ffc0000                                           
> Bad eraseblock 2047 at 0x00000ffe0000                                           
> Registering mxc_nand as whole device  
> 
> If I define it as:
> 
> static struct mxc_nand_platform_data mx31pdk_nand_board_info = {
> 	.width = 1,
> 	.hw_ecc = 1,
> 	.flash_bbt =1,
> };
> 
> The bad block messages go away. 
> 
> What would be the correct way?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Fabio Estevam

Well, I am not very experienced on mtd devices, but if you
trust what your bootloader say, Bad blocks reporting must not change.
On my mx31_3ds board, omitting that row means A LOT of bad block 
reporting that is in contrast with the bootloader.

-- 
Alberto!

        Be Persistent!
                - Greg Kroah-Hartman (FOSDEM 2010)