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 1GndhV-0002iu-Jp for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:15:17 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [MTD] NAND: Lazily BBT construction From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Konstantin Baydarov In-Reply-To: <20061124165618.44418a5e@localhost.localdomain> References: <20061124154210.6303c9fe@localhost.localdomain> <1164373550.576.13.camel@sauron> <20061124165618.44418a5e@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 17:45:38 +0200 Message-Id: <1164383138.576.21.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 16:56 +0300, Konstantin Baydarov wrote: > Patch covers the case when there is no on-flash BBT and on-flash > BBT wasn't requested Right. So the idea was if your flash is small enough and you are satisfied with scanning, you use scanning. If not, you use on-flash BBT. > How can I use it?=20 I haven't actually used it. There is some flag you have to set in your chip structure. > Also when we have on-flash BBT we > don't need to scan chip so we don't need lazily BBT. Yes, I did not say this. I meant why don't you just switch to on-media BBT instead of implementing this lazy scan stuff. Just curious. --=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)