[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230823133956.0a505a20@xps-13>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 13:39:56 +0200
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Martin Kurbanov <mmkurbanov@...rdevices.ru>
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 Martin,
mmkurbanov@...rdevices.ru wrote on Wed, 23 Aug 2023 14:33:57 +0300:
> 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.
Is this really a process the chip can do? Aren't bad blocks factory
marked only?
Then it's mtd's duty to manage them.
Thanks,
Miquèl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists