On 02/13/2016 12:18 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 02:41 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 at 11:45:08 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 18:42 +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
- /* sometimes people do not think about using the ECC, so check
* to see if we have an 0xff,0xff,0xff read ECC and then ignore* the error, on the assumption that this is an un-eccd page.*/Eww. I suppose I won't argue too loudly if Linux is doing the same thing, but what if it's a corrupted blank page, or the ECC just happened to turn out as all 0xff? It seems like there should at least be a warning the first time this happens, and ideally it should be configurable.
- if (read_ecc[0] == 0xff && read_ecc[1] == 0xff && read_ecc[2]
== 0xff
/*&& info->platform->ignore_unset_ecc*/)return 0;
So it looks like it is configurable in Linux, but you've commented it out here.
@@ -221,6 +298,8 @@ int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *nand)
nand->dev_ready = s3c24x0_dev_ready;
- nand->chip_delay = 50;
I'm not sure how this is related to the changes described in the changelog...
Can you collect the MTD patches which are applicable at least and drop this one?
4/10 is already merged. Which patches are you referring to that don't have comments, still apply cleanly, and are patching a NAND file?
Most of this patchset.