From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 213-239-205-147.clients.your-server.de ([213.239.205.147] helo=debian.tglx.de) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.42 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1CJsd2-0002d1-7k for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:58:13 -0400 From: Thomas Gleixner To: simon@baydel.com In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1098186608.12223.857.camel@thomas> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:50:08 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Bad Blocks On JFFS2/NAND Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 13:22, Simon Haynes wrote: > I have experienced a problem in which a JFF2 filesystem on NAND became full. > This is a root file system and constant writes to a logfile filled the > filesystem. On investigation it was found that the NAND device now had > hundreds of bad blocks. > > I started to investigate this and found that JFFS2 was announcing > > Newly-erased block contained word 0x1985e002 at offset 0x020f7e00 > > Messages which result in my mtd/jffs2 code marking the block bad. What I find > strange is that a subsequent scan list the new block at a different 16k > offset when the device erasesize is 16k, in this case 0x020f0000. > Is that because my device is 128Mb and JFFS2 is using this 'virtual erase > size' of 32k ? Yes. The bad block code scans/marks physical blocks and JFFS2 operates on virtual ones, if the device size is big enough. > I have observed this now on several different NAND devices and it seems to be > more prominent while performing small writes. > > I am currently trying to work out if the erase is not completing, or this is > the wrong block or something else. Hmm, are you using Ready/Busy Pin or the timeout ? tglx