From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Miquel Raynal Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mtd: rawnand: qcom: update BBT related flags Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:41:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20180718234144.158217f2@xps13> References: <1530863519-5564-1-git-send-email-absahu@codeaurora.org> <1530863519-5564-5-git-send-email-absahu@codeaurora.org> <20180718231526.38046099@xps13> <20180718233637.49a39751@bbrezillon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180718233637.49a39751@bbrezillon> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Boris Brezillon Cc: Abhishek Sahu , David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Marek Vasut , Richard Weinberger , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Andy Gross List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Hi Boris, Boris Brezillon wrote on Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:36:37 +0200: > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:15:26 +0200 > Miquel Raynal wrote: > > > Hi Abhishek, > > > > Abhishek Sahu wrote on Fri, 6 Jul 2018 > > 13:21:58 +0530: > > > > > Remove the NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN to use RAM based BBT. > > > > Unless I am understanding it the wrong way, NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN will skip > > the scan of the on-chip BBT and will scan every block to construct a > > RAM, based BBT thanks to the BBM. > > > > So flash based BBT is already unused and removing this flag is a > > mistake, right? > > ->scan_bbt() is also taking care of building the in-RAM BBT based on > BBM when no on-flash BBT is provided, so I think it's the right thing > to do. Oh right. Then doing so is harmless. Thanks for the clarification. Miquèl