|
Re: Yaffs Packed Tags and bad block markings: msg#00035linux.file-systems.yaffs
On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 23:46 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 16:55 -0500, Lance Ware wrote: > > I am using yaffs2 and i am looking at the arrangement of the extended > > tags areas. My question is i have a Samsung chip which uses bad block > > markers at the 0 byte of the 64-byte spare area. But when i pass the > > extended tags parameter to my nand_write function, the bad block maker > > is overwritten with the tag information. > > What is your nand_write function ? Userspace application ? > > > I was wondering was their a way to change the arrangement of the bad > > block marker. > > No Oops, I forgot about bad block tables, but there is no necessity to use them. The NAND driver can create bad block table(s) on the first detection of the chip. Then the bad block marker position is not longer reserved, because the driver scans for bad block tables instead of the oob bits, which mark the block bad. This requires to have intact bad block information on the first detection. tglx |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: Yaffs Packed Tags and bad block markings: 00035, Thomas Gleixner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Yaffs Packed Tags and bad block markings: 00035, Charles Manning |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Yaffs Packed Tags and bad block markingsi: 00035, Thomas Gleixner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Yaffs Packed Tags and bad block markings: 00035, Charles Manning |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |