From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-gx0-f177.google.com ([209.85.161.177]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Rn995-0004f2-FM for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:32:16 +0000 Received: by ggnl1 with SMTP id l1so3594714ggn.36 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2012 05:32:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1326807227.28708.6.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] NAND BBM + BBT updates From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Angus CLARK Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:33:47 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4F154BF6.6020608@st.com> References: <1326140612-26323-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com> <4F0C086A.5070608@linutronix.de> <1326320928.2338.37.camel@koala> <4F154BF6.6020608@st.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-jJXDMPr+O0nG1YasGaOk" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Dan Carpenter , Kulikov Vasiliy , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Nicolas Ferre , Dominik Brodowski , Adrian Hunter , Gabor Juhos , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Jonas Gorski , Jamie Iles , Ivan Djelic , Robert Jarzmik , David Woodhouse , Maxim Levitsky , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , Kevin Cernekee , Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>, Jim Quinlan , Andres Salomon , Axel Lin , Anatolij Gustschin , Mike Frysinger , Arnd Bergmann , Lei Wen , Sascha Hauer , Florian Fainelli , Peter Wippich , Matthieu CASTET , Kyungmin Park , Shmulik Ladkani , Wolfram Sang , Chuanxiao Dong , Joe Perches , Guillaume LECERF , Brian Norris , Roman Tereshonkov Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-jJXDMPr+O0nG1YasGaOk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 10:22 +0000, Angus CLARK wrote: > On 01/11/2012 10:28 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > In my view, OOB BB markers is the primary, reliable, and simple > > mechanism. And BBT is just an additional optimization to speed up syste= m > > startup. >=20 > This seems to be contrary to the advice given by the various NAND manufac= turers > (with a quite unusual show of consensus!) Once a block has been deemed t= o have > gone bad, one cannot rely on *any* operations being successful, and that > includes writing a bad block marker to the OOB area. The recommended app= roach > has for some time been to use a Flash-resident bad block table, with an i= nitial > scan for the manufacturer-programmed bad-block markers. OK, thanks for correction and information. --=20 Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy --=-jJXDMPr+O0nG1YasGaOk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJPFXi7AAoJECmIfjd9wqK0C3YP/RZv9f4XjZ95ay+vnmJYJ3VN KkZwLz8c0vpe452AnDM01F6tv+vZNXzsNMaGhu/XhxrPUqalMptBgq36GxjhT7wS +Qtae9w8z446v84LVYKwXra5ng/CWfv33g+pbpvA9zBzFD5HSDQtvBqcP/Q1mKzK OJonmc0zZawiRrO75kf9O5FrUsMmUYm8sakzPwp+zHmsSYxiieOZhvAymwAWNZS2 x2ScgDUbYP/vsNYfJu6QTdA59xbkgWnRAVp+47HB40/2C3XvtA3+rJr7Rvxij9p7 p1v+lDNiY62nlze9iDC0DW9MmUIKlxvKGmerBdAoyjE9Tfxtbo1As1J26WEL9dvL +5pzp35QVdOTb8oDNoQeLDD03Y4ro1yTMgCspRQbDPUdX/le7Pv6LjptLP3KM9fm S7qfQafFX1czeZVI6xdERZ6SwBwzBnUlnX5snpd+ejS08+pP4w3pQIAcI9Y3jcw+ GCRDp0XhZucmIhiWdMr2gcwz5nK0T+faNkaIKY1ZP9kSJv3kMXqqVE4qQtc8odtq KAPwEe9PwXE+tzcpoEDsQmkA1EhTGfxJtdWe/fLEGzBQ/LTIM9AI4n6DQG2Tbdp0 OVtnJUXbbLEEzaSKxi+FRkNa7limXY2Xn8GZjZnzOh8pjDBXHYWUSqJs8sRg7X3o 4+jL16w+Q8Q4tvMClSnQ =Zey/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-jJXDMPr+O0nG1YasGaOk--