From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chin Liang See <clsee@altera.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 02:15:10 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] mtd: denali: improve nand_read_oob and fix
 nand_write_oob
In-Reply-To: <1398193920.1694.219.camel@snotra.buserror.net>
References: <1397820646-1439-1-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com>
	<1398118874.1694.193.camel@snotra.buserror.net>
	<20140422100441.FC55.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com>
	<1398193920.1694.219.camel@snotra.buserror.net>
Message-ID: <1398237310.4007.3.camel@clsee-VirtualBox.altera.com>
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 Tue, 2014-04-22 at 14:12 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 10:04 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > Hi Scott,
> > 
> > 
> > > > It is really really painful to wait more than 10 seconds just for bad block
> > > > scanning to boot Linux.
> > > 
> > > Making bad block scans faster is a good thing, but why do you need to
> > > scan them just to boot Linux?  Aren't you using an on-flash BBT?
> > 
> > I did not know that.
> > I thought all blocks must be scanned.
> > 
> > Could you teach me the better way?
> 
> If you use NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH, and NAND_BBT_CREATE is present in the bbt
> descriptor (this is true of the default descriptors), then the scanning
> should only need to happen on first use.  On subsequent boots only the
> bad block table should need to be read.

Yup, I agreed with this statement :) I believe this bad block table can
be used by kernel in later stage. Probably someone can comment if I am
wrong.

Thanks
Chin Liang

> 
> -Scott
> 
>