From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 18:01:03 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 13/13] mxc nand: Add support for i.MX5
In-Reply-To: <942845625.1498396.1353097696207.JavaMail.root@advansee.com>
	(from benoit.thebaudeau@advansee.com on Fri Nov 16 14:28:16 2012)
Message-ID: <1353110463.13910.7@snotra>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On 11/16/2012 02:28:16 PM, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> Also, I've noticed that some of the oobfree fields of the  
> nand_ecclayout
> structures in mxc_nand.c are slightly different from what can be  
> found in Linux.
> Any idea about which one is correct (if any)?

Unless there's an obvious error such as overlap with ECC or a bad block  
marker, there isn't really a right answer (except to the extent that  
you're wasting bytes) -- but it's important that everyone agree.  So  
the answer is basically, "which compatibility would it hurt more to  
break?"

That said, the U-Boot ones make more sense to me in terms of not having  
strange missing bytes.

> This field does not even always start at offset 0 when it looks free  
> according
> to the ECC info. Is this normal?

Yes.  Bad block markers are at offset zero except on 8-bit 512b-page  
chips.

-Scott