From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:13:19 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mtd: nand: revive "nand scrub" command In-Reply-To: <20141215195407.0531.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com> References: <1418334191.5581.58.camel@freescale.com> <548A88E9.5030203@denx.de> <20141215195407.0531.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com> Message-ID: <201412151213.19794.marex@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Monday, December 15, 2014 at 11:54:08 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2014 07:19:21 +0100 > > Heiko Schocher wrote: > > Hello Scott, > > > > Am 11.12.2014 22:43, schrieb Scott Wood: > > > On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 22:37 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > >> On Thursday, December 11, 2014 at 09:37:10 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > >>> On Thu, 2014-12-11 at 19:49 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > >>>> Since commit ff94bc40af34 (mtd, ubi, ubifs: resync with Linux-3.14), > > >>>> the "nand scrub" command has not been working. > > >>>> > > >>>> The scrub is a U-Boot extension and we have to modify nand_base.c > > >>>> that originates in Linux. > > >>>> > > >>>> Mark the code with #ifdef __UBOOT__ so we will never accidentally > > >>>> drop it when we re-sync the NAND framework with Linux in the future. > > >>> > > >>> No more "#ifdef __UBOOT__" please. > > >> > > >> Do you happen to have a helpful suggestion how to clearly mark those > > >> bits of code then please ? > > > > > > This was already discussed. :-) > > > > > > See the archives for why I think this is bad. > > > > > >>> Instead, never again do a "start > > >>> from scratch" resync the way that the above commit was done. > > >> > > >> This was already discussed, no need to revive this topic here now. > > > > > > Sorry, but these patches fixing breakages that resulted from that merge > > > demonstrate that there is a need to revive it, if there's anyone that > > > still thinks it's a good idea -- Heiko seemed to be in agreement that > > > there's no need to do that for future syncs: > > > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2014-November/194256.html > > > > Yes, I hope a resync works now fine ... but I prefer to mark the > > differences between linux and u-boot somehow, because, you immediately > > see the differences between linux and u-boot, when you read the u-boot > > code ... > > I agree with Heiko. I second that. Best regards, Marek Vasut