On 11/16/2012 02:28:16 PM, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
Also, I've noticed that some of the oobfree fields of the nand_ecclayout structures in mxc_nand.c are slightly different from what can be found in Linux. Any idea about which one is correct (if any)?
Unless there's an obvious error such as overlap with ECC or a bad block marker, there isn't really a right answer (except to the extent that you're wasting bytes) -- but it's important that everyone agree. So the answer is basically, "which compatibility would it hurt more to break?"
That said, the U-Boot ones make more sense to me in terms of not having strange missing bytes.
This field does not even always start at offset 0 when it looks free according to the ECC info. Is this normal?
Yes. Bad block markers are at offset zero except on 8-bit 512b-page chips.
-Scott