[U-Boot-Users] RE: Nand OOB layout, u-boot and the kernel sources do not agree.. ??
Looking about infradead.org tells that the OOB area can be reconfigured via ioctl. I suppose that this is something which would be needed prior to mount. Having more up to date definitions would seem better....as raw nand doesn't seem to be well supported except with jffs2 & possibly yaffs I don't suppose the NAND_NOOB is such a concern.
Richard W.
-----Original Message----- From: Woodruff, Richard Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:45 PM To: u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Nand OOB layout, u-boot and the kernel sources do not agree..??
Hello,
While trying to resolve what the OOB data layout should be I see that the kernel headers as of 8-10-2002 have changed such that both the NAND_JFFS2 and NAND_NOOB use position 5 for bad block data. The u-boot headers do not reflect this change...doesn't this mean u-boot will be incompatible with more recent kernels? Should u-boot's headers be updated here?
Regards,
Richard W.
Richard Woodruff wrote:
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 1:57 PM
-----Original Message----- From: Woodruff, Richard Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:45 PM While trying to resolve what the OOB data layout should be I see that the kernel headers as of 8-10-2002 have changed such that both the NAND_JFFS2 and NAND_NOOB use position 5 for bad block data. The u-boot headers do not reflect this change...doesn't this mean u-boot will be incompatible with more recent kernels? Should u-boot's headers be updated here?
Position 5 is where the chip makers mark bad sectors, so we do not get a choice. The NAND_NOOB values in U-BOOT are wrong and should be changed to match the new ones in the Linux kernel. I think the original cmd_nand.c was based on a very old version of MTD.
... Having more up to date definitions would seem better....as raw nand doesn't seem to be well supported except with jffs2 & possibly yaffs I don't suppose the NAND_NOOB is such a concern.
I don't know what software (if any) uses NAND_NOOB, but I think the definitions still should be fixed (or removed). In my patch to cmd_nand.c I hard coded the bad block position at 5, so they can't be used as they are.
Dave
Dave Ellis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SIXNET - "Leading the Industrial Ethernet Revolution" 331 Ushers Road, P.O. Box 767, Clifton Park, NY 12065 USA Tel +1 (518) 877-5173 Fax +1 (518) 877-8346 Email me at: dge@sixnetio.com Detailed product info: www.sixnetio.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In message 00512BA4F9D3D311912A009027E9B8F407E524@NT you wrote:
Position 5 is where the chip makers mark bad sectors, so we do not get a choice. The NAND_NOOB values in U-BOOT are wrong and should be changed to match the new ones in the Linux kernel. I think the original cmd_nand.c was based on a very old version of MTD.
Probably. Can anybody please submit a patch, then?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (3)
-
Dave Ellis -
Wolfgang Denk -
Woodruff, Richard