Re: [Yaffs] bit error rates --> a vendor speaks

Jon Masters
2006-02-21T00:30:08Z

On 2/20/06, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 11:40 +1300, Charles Manning wrote:
> > Just going for the lowest common denominator all the time is like saying "run
> > all serial links at 9600 and never use 115200 because 115200 might not be
> > supported on all possible serial links", or "you can't run an ftdi USB serial
> > port at 230k because most PC serial ports only go up to 115200".
>
> Again, the comparison is still flawed.
>
> The worst serial device still guarantees a baudrate > 0 and the
> effective baudrate has no impact on data storage size.

Just let me make sure I'm getting this right:

1). You don't have OOB available to you with your NAND part.
2). You want YAFFS changed to suit your special case.

It's all very well arguing that relying on OOB in all cases is a bad
idea - and indeed, it sounds like a good idea to support packing extra
data into pages on flash - but you seem very keen on pushing the idea
that it's always bad to use OOB. So long as logic is added such that
you can have different behaviour, I fail to see the problem here.

Cheers,

Jon.