From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Charles Manning Subject: Re: UbiFS + HWECC(?) + BeagleBoard = fail Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:19:24 +1300 Message-ID: <201012081319.24319.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.scorch.co.nz ([27.110.127.199]:43575 "HELO scorch.co.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754378Ab0LHAT2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:19:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Luca Ceresoli Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, notasas@gmail.com On Tuesday 07 December 2010 23:29:59 Luca Ceresoli wrote: > Luca Ceresoli wrote: > > While I thank you for you proposed solution, I see it does not work here. > > In fact I commented the #define CONFIG_MTD_NAND_OMAP_HWECC and left > > MTD_NAND_OMAP_PREFETCH disabled as it previously was, and got compilation > > errors: > > Wrong, sorry. Your solution compiles and works. I had another change in > that file that broke compilation. Luca, I have been having similar problems on a hacked Overo kernel. I have no problems with 2.6.35. I tried just commenting out the define and disabling PREFETCH and did not get a good boot due to ubi not finding the volume info. Are you loading up a UBI image with uboot? Are you using the ubi volume as rootfs? > > Nevertheless, it's not clear to me whether the long-term direction is to > switch to HWECC, and if it is expected to work in current builds, or if > SWECC in here to stay. > Clearly HWECC has some advantages, but UBI and HWECC need some effort to get working together. -- Charles