From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgw-ext12.nokia.com ([131.228.20.171]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.62 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Gnam8-0000Np-4i for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:07:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [MTD] NAND: Lazily BBT construction From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Konstantin Baydarov In-Reply-To: <20061124154210.6303c9fe@localhost.localdomain> References: <20061124154210.6303c9fe@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:05:50 +0200 Message-Id: <1164373550.576.13.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 15:42 +0300, Konstantin Baydarov wrote: > This is the implementation of lazy BBT construction. It introduces > a new config option that allows to construct BBT(bad block table) > lazily for NAND chips with memory based BBT. > The main goal of the feature introduced is to decrease boot time. > How it works: BBT is filled only when we check if block is bad. NAND > is > scanned and BBT entries is constructed from topmost unscanned block to > requested. > By default BBT is constructed during boot. To enable lazily > construction NAND_LAZY_BBT bit should be set in options field of > structure nand_chip.=20 Also, the 3rd question. 3. Why don't you use on-flash BBT if you are not satisfied with in-RAM BBT? --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)