On 09/30/2011 04:10 AM, Jin Zhengxiong-R64188 wrote:
I once met the similar issue with 2011.03 base and fixed it with following patch, But I didn't do a detail checking for that, FYI...
@@ -499,6 +499,7 @@ int nand_write_skip_bad(nand_info_t *nand, loff_t offset, size_t *length, return -EINVAL; }
+#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_NAND_YAFFS if (!need_skip) { rval = nand_write (nand, offset, length, buffer); if (rval == 0) @@ -509,13 +510,12 @@ int nand_write_skip_bad(nand_info_t *nand, loff_t offset, size_t *length, offset, rval); return rval; }
+#endif
This should be a runtime check for whether yaffs was actually requested. The current code does something similar for WITH_DROP_FFS.
Or perhaps we should just drop this optimization altogether, barring someone demonstrating that it makes a huge performance difference.
while (left_to_write > 0) { size_t block_offset = offset & (nand->erasesize - 1); size_t write_size;
WATCHDOG_RESET ();
- if (nand_block_isbad (nand, offset & ~(nand->erasesize - 1))) { printf ("Skip bad block 0x%08llx\n", offset & ~(nand->erasesize - 1));
@@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ int nand_write_skip_bad(nand_info_t *nand, loff_t offset, size_t *length, ops.oobbuf = ops.datbuf + pagesize;
rval = nand->write_oob(nand, offset, &ops);
if (!rval)
if ( rval != 0) break; offset += pagesize;
Drop these.
-Scott