[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55C067F7.3000309@nod.at>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 09:21:27 +0200
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Andrea Scian <rnd4@...e-tech.it>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Han Xu <b45815@...escale.com>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mtd: nand: use nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk in
default ECC read functions
Andrea,
Am 04.08.2015 um 09:02 schrieb Andrea Scian:
>> I'm not sure whether introducing a read-before-write check is the best solution.
>> At least we need hard numbers for slow/old SLC NANDs too.
>
> We can enable the feature only for MLC, AFAIK it has not been required for old SLC ;-)
I think this needs more discussion.
Boris, Brian, will you be at Embedded Linux Conference Europe in Dublin?
Maybe we can discuss these issues (data retention, ff-checks, etc...) in person and figure out where to address them.
I really want to avoid ad-hoc solutions. :)
> Thanks.
> In your opinion, enabling chk_io is correct to rough estimate the overhead or does it enable too much checks?
You mean the other checks bedside of self_check_write()? You can comment them out for your tests.
Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists