From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172] helo=mgw-ext13.nokia.com) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1GsgA1-000570-Fv for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:53:15 -0500 Subject: Re: Eraseblocks torture: OneNAND results From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Ricard Wanderlof In-Reply-To: References: <19898399.377451165543227681.JavaMail.weblogic@ep_ml03> <1165558783.20337.112.camel@sauron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:52:30 +0200 Message-Id: <1165585950.3975.15.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello Ricard, On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 14:43 +0100, Ricard Wanderlof wrote: > Isn't 100000 a figure quoted by the flash manufacturer to be the _minimum= _=20 > number of erase cycles, a specification which all devices must meet, even= =20 > at extreme operating conditions (e.g. high temperature and extreme supply= =20 > voltages)? That would imply that during more ordinary conditions, a rando= m=20 > sample of flash chip would very likely be erasable many more times. Probably. Not sure. Need to carefully look to the manual. Do not have it now handy. But probably you are right. Also HW guys say that such a very frequent erase may matter. > Another thing: Why implement it as a kernel module? Speed I would assume? Yeah, wanted to make it quicker. --=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)