From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:11:47 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] cmd_nand: add biterror insertion command for
	NAND Flash
In-Reply-To: <4F056660.3060700@keymile.com>
References: <1325691123-19565-1-git-send-email-holger.brunck@keymile.com>
	<4F048FF2.9020207@freescale.com> <4F056660.3060700@keymile.com>
Message-ID: <4F05F5F3.4010507@freescale.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 01/05/2012 02:59 AM, Holger Brunck wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> 
> On 01/04/2012 06:44 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 01/04/2012 09:32 AM, Holger Brunck wrote:
>>>
>>> Initial implementation for unsafe feature for biterror insertion on
>>> NAND-Flash devices. The code flips single bits in the data block of the
>>> flash to simulate single bit-errors.
>>> Tested with Samsung K9F1G08U0D and Micron MT29F1G08ABADAWP on
>>> km_kirkwood boards.
>>
>> Do we still need dedicated code for this now that we have the ability to
>> do raw writes?
>>
> 
> to be able to do raw writes was very usefull for me to reproduce a bug in the
> UBI layer in the past. Bitflips happen very rarely but they happen, and with
> this code you are able to force this and see how other SW layer handle this. Due
> to the fact there was an empty implementation in the u-boot code for this I
> thought it might be usefull for others too.

The biterr stub has been around since before we had raw writes.  If we
decide we don't need a separate biterr command, we should remove the stub.

Anything the biterr command does should be possible with raw writes, so
while having a dedicated command might be slightly more convenient, I
don't think it's worth the extra code size, review/fix iterations, and
maintenance.

Does anyone else have a strong opinion on the matter?

-Scott