From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: w.sang@pengutronix.de (Wolfram Sang) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:41:31 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] mtd/gpmi : add BBT support In-Reply-To: <4F267F21.1030204@freescale.com> References: <1327898174-13656-1-git-send-email-b32955@freescale.com> <20120130094610.GA15596@pengutronix.de> <4F2671C3.6000809@freescale.com> <20120130104428.GB15596@pengutronix.de> <4F267F21.1030204@freescale.com> Message-ID: <20120130114131.GC15596@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org CCing Marek, he can say more about the U-Boot side probably... > > Bootloaders may also need to write to NAND. So, they need to share the > Do you mean the uboot may write something to the NAND? > Could you show me some more detail cases? U-Boot has NAND support in mainline, for barebox it is work-in-progress. Both can and do write to NAND (kernel, rootfs), because both have established procedures to do so (and maybe don't want to rely on third-party tools like kobs-ng). > > share the same information then. To be on the safe side regardings > The kobs-ng which burns the bootloader to the NAND will also burn the > whole BBT > to the NAND too. Did it always do that? Or is a newer version needed? > But if the bootloader can make some block bad, the BBT information > becomes different. > Does the bootloader have the feature to make some block bad? Sure. If you are able to write NAND, you should be able to mark blocks bad, too :) Thanks, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: