[U-Boot] [PATCH] NAND: Really ignore bad blocks when scrubbing

[U-Boot] [PATCH] NAND: Really ignore bad blocks when scrubbing

[Marek Vasut]

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c |    2 +-
 drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c |    1 +
 include/linux/mtd/mtd.h      |    1 +
 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
index a5f872e..3093067 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
@@ -2224,7 +2224,7 @@ int nand_erase_nand(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct erase_info *instr,
 		/*
 		 * heck if we have a bad block, we do not erase bad blocks !
 		 */
-		if (nand_block_checkbad(mtd, ((loff_t) page) <<
+		if (!instr->scrub && nand_block_checkbad(mtd, ((loff_t) page) <<
 					chip->page_shift, 0, allowbbt)) {
 			printk(KERN_WARNING "nand_erase: attempt to erase a "
 			       "bad block at page 0x%08x\n", page);
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c
index 81bf366..9da6eea 100644
--- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c
+++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c
@@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ int nand_erase_opts(nand_info_t *meminfo, const nand_erase_options_t *opts)
 	erase.mtd = meminfo;
 	erase.len  = meminfo->erasesize;
 	erase.addr = opts->offset;
+	erase.scrub = opts->scrub;
 	erase_length = lldiv(opts->length + meminfo->erasesize - 1,
 			     meminfo->erasesize);
 
diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h b/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h
index 3b18d7d..13a711d 100644
--- a/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h
+++ b/include/linux/mtd/mtd.h
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ struct erase_info {
 	u_long priv;
 	u_char state;
 	struct erase_info *next;
+	int scrub;
 };
 
 struct mtd_erase_region_info {
-- 
1.7.5.4

[U-Boot] [PATCH] NAND: Really ignore bad blocks when scrubbing

[Scott Wood]

On 08/16/2011 12:03 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c |    2 +-
>  drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c |    1 +
>  include/linux/mtd/mtd.h      |    1 +
>  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> index a5f872e..3093067 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> @@ -2224,7 +2224,7 @@ int nand_erase_nand(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct erase_info *instr,
>  		/*
>  		 * heck if we have a bad block, we do not erase bad blocks !
>  		 */
> -		if (nand_block_checkbad(mtd, ((loff_t) page) <<
> +		if (!instr->scrub && nand_block_checkbad(mtd, ((loff_t) page) <<
>  					chip->page_shift, 0, allowbbt)) {
>  			printk(KERN_WARNING "nand_erase: attempt to erase a "
>  			       "bad block at page 0x%08x\n", page);

Changelog should describe why the existing mechanism of overriding the
block_bad method is insufficient (I think there may be issues if you try
to scrub before the bbt is first built) -- and if this supersedes that
mechanism, that mechanism should be removed.

-Scott

[U-Boot] [PATCH] NAND: Really ignore bad blocks when scrubbing

[Marek Vasut]

On Friday, August 19, 2011 10:08:33 PM Scott Wood wrote:
> On 08/16/2011 12:03 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > 
> >  drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c |    2 +-
> >  drivers/mtd/nand/nand_util.c |    1 +
> >  include/linux/mtd/mtd.h      |    1 +
> >  3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > index a5f872e..3093067 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_base.c
> > @@ -2224,7 +2224,7 @@ int nand_erase_nand(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct
> > erase_info *instr,
> > 
> >  		/*
> >  		
> >  		 * heck if we have a bad block, we do not erase bad blocks !
> >  		 */
> > 
> > -		if (nand_block_checkbad(mtd, ((loff_t) page) <<
> > +		if (!instr->scrub && nand_block_checkbad(mtd, ((loff_t) page) <<
> > 
> >  					chip->page_shift, 0, allowbbt)) {
> >  			
> >  			printk(KERN_WARNING "nand_erase: attempt to erase a "
> >  			
> >  			       "bad block at page 0x%08x\n", page);
> 
> Changelog should describe why the existing mechanism of overriding the
> block_bad method is insufficient (I think there may be issues if you try
> to scrub before the bbt is first built) -- and if this supersedes that
> mechanism, that mechanism should be removed.

Indeed, this completely ignores the BBT, unlike the previous way. From my 
understanding, scrub should behave this way, right ?

> 
> -Scott

[U-Boot] [PATCH] NAND: Really ignore bad blocks when scrubbing

[Scott Wood]

On 08/19/2011 04:47 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Friday, August 19, 2011 10:08:33 PM Scott Wood wrote:
>> Changelog should describe why the existing mechanism of overriding the
>> block_bad method is insufficient (I think there may be issues if you try
>> to scrub before the bbt is first built) -- and if this supersedes that
>> mechanism, that mechanism should be removed.
> 
> Indeed, this completely ignores the BBT, unlike the previous way. From my 
> understanding, scrub should behave this way, right ?

Yes.  This is a more straightforward approach, but the changelog should
explain why the change is being made, and the patch should remove the
nand_block_bad_scrub() hack that is now unnecessary.

-Scott

[U-Boot] nested defines coding style

[Jeroen Hofstee]

Hi all,

I couldn't (easily) find a doc for coding style regarding defines in 
u-boot. I commenly don't indent preprocessor macro's, but when reading 
code from some one else code I tend to prefer single space indentation 
for these (before the #). Is there a standard for this in u-boot?

Regards,
Jeroen

[U-Boot] nested defines coding style

[Mike Frysinger]

On Friday, August 19, 2011 17:57:50 Jeroen Hofstee wrote:
> I couldn't (easily) find a doc for coding style regarding defines in
> u-boot. I commenly don't indent preprocessor macro's, but when reading
> code from some one else code I tend to prefer single space indentation
> for these (before the #). Is there a standard for this in u-boot?

i prefer:
#if 1
# if 2
#  if 3
...
#  else
...
#  endif
# endif
#endif

but doing this without the space after the "#" is acceptable.  these two 
styles are your only options, but i dont believe there is a rule as to which 
you pick other than "if you're the maintainer of the code in question, use 
whichever you like".

also, please dont hijack threads.  start a new e-mail from scratch ... dont 
just hit "reply" to any old e-mail and erase the subject/body.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20110819/c5c4a8f7/attachment.pgp 

[U-Boot] [PATCH] NAND: Really ignore bad blocks when scrubbing

[Marek Vasut]

On Friday, August 19, 2011 11:55:30 PM Scott Wood wrote:
> On 08/19/2011 04:47 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On Friday, August 19, 2011 10:08:33 PM Scott Wood wrote:
> >> Changelog should describe why the existing mechanism of overriding the
> >> block_bad method is insufficient (I think there may be issues if you try
> >> to scrub before the bbt is first built) -- and if this supersedes that
> >> mechanism, that mechanism should be removed.
> > 
> > Indeed, this completely ignores the BBT, unlike the previous way. From my
> > understanding, scrub should behave this way, right ?
> 
> Yes.  This is a more straightforward approach, but the changelog should
> explain why the change is being made, and the patch should remove the
> nand_block_bad_scrub() hack that is now unnecessary.

V2 on the way.

> 
> -Scott