From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:55:13 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Bad block skipping for command nboot
In-Reply-To: <468A60D8.9060704@siemens.com>
References: <4688DAAD.6020501@siemens.com> <200707031427.34164.sr@denx.de>
	<468A60D8.9060704@siemens.com>
Message-ID: <200707031655.13160.sr@denx.de>
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

Hi Thomas,

On Tuesday 03 July 2007, Thomas Knobloch wrote:
> > And that's why I have to ask: Do we really need this command extension?
> > Why not just use a combination of commands (e.g. "nand read.jffs2
> > ...;bootm ...)?
>
> Using "nand read.jffs2 ...;bootm ..." has one disadvantage compared to the
> new "nboot.jffs2 ...". For the first command sequence u-boot has to read a
> fixed number of bytes from the NAND. You have to make big enough to support
> the largest possible image for your application. If the image is smaller
> u-boot will still have to read this fixed number of bytes.
> For "nboot" resp. "nboot.jffs2" u-boot will read only as much data from
> NAND as necessary. This might give some performance improvement.

Understood.

> BTW: when 
> you ask for the need of the command "nboot.jffs2" you probably should
> question the pure "nboot" as well. It can be replaced by "nand read
> ...;bootm ..." as well.

Yep, correct. That's what was asking myself. I never used it so far.

Please resend the patch and I'll commit it to the NAND repository.

Thanks.

Best regards,
Stefan

=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80  Email: office at denx.de
=====================================================================