[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f873d775-cda9-302d-a651-0113c7c7dc84@sberdevices.ru>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 14:33:57 +0300
From: Martin Kurbanov <mmkurbanov@...rdevices.ru>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
CC: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
<kernel@...rdevices.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mtd: spinand: micron: fixing the offset for OOB
Hi Miquel,
On 23.08.2023 11:41, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I don't think the four bytes have any "bad block specific" meaning. In
> practice, the datasheet states:
>
> Value programmed for bad block at the first byte of spare
> area: 00h
>
> So only the first byte is used to mark the block bad, the rest is
> probably marked "reserved" for simplicity. I believe we should keep the
> current layout because it would otherwise break users for no real
> reason.
I agree with you that this can break the work of users who use OOB.
However, I believe it would be more appropriate to use an offset of 4,
as the micron chip can use all 4 bytes for additional data about the
bad block. So, there is a non-zero probability of losing OOB data in
the reserved area (2 bytes) when the hardware chip attempts to mark
the block as bad.
--
Best Regards,
Martin Kurbanov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists