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 1CK24v-0006sx-KN for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:03:40 -0400 From: Thomas Gleixner To: Michael Moedt In-Reply-To: <20041019214518.26339.qmail@web52703.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041019214518.26339.qmail@web52703.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1098222917.12223.1020.camel@thomas> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:55:17 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, simon@baydel.com 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 23:45, Michael Moedt wrote: > 1. Do you know what usually causes the "Newly-erased block contained > word "... error? > Is it caused by a interrupted (or otherwise failed) erase? Would > power-fail cause this? It's caused by a failed erase. If the chip interface is correct then it is usually a problem of a bad page/block. If not (e.g. wrong timing) it might return too early from an erase. > 2. Would this cause good blocks to be incorrectly [and permanently] > marked as bad? Only if failes 5 times after mount. The counter is reset with each mount. > > I think I may have seen something similar on my system. I'm > considering writing a test to see if this is a problem for me, but > I'd like to learn more about this also. Which version of the mtd/nand code ? There was a problem with the page cache, which was not invalidated on erase some time ago, but its fixed. tglx