[U-Boot-Users] RE: Nand OOB layout, u-boot and the kernel sources do not agree.. ??

[U-Boot-Users] RE: Nand OOB layout, u-boot and the kernel sources do not agree.. ??

[Woodruff, Richard]

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 at 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20030724/4cc484b9/attachment.htm 

[U-Boot-Users] RE: Nand OOB layout, u-boot and the kernel sources do not agree.. ??

[Dave Ellis]

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 at sixnetio.com 
Detailed product info: www.sixnetio.com 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[U-Boot-Users] RE: Nand OOB layout, u-boot and the kernel sources do not agree.. ??

[Wolfgang Denk]

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

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
This all sounds complicated, but it mostly does excatly what you  ex-
pect. It's just difficult for us to explain what you expect...
                       - L. Wall & R. L. Schwartz, _Programming Perl_