Hi Abhishek, On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:46:47 +0530, Abhishek Sahu <absahu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2018-05-26 14:28, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Abhishek, > > > >> @@ -2141,12 +2127,10 @@ static int qcom_nandc_block_bad(struct >> mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs) > >> goto err; > >> } > >> >> - bbpos = mtd->writesize - host->cw_size * (ecc->steps - 1); > >> - > >> - bad = nandc->data_buffer[bbpos] != 0xff; > >> + bad = bbm_bytes_buf[0] != 0xff; > > > BTW, as there are host->bbm_size bytes that can inform on the block > > state, don't we need to check all of them? > > > We are checking all of them. > host->bbm_size will be either 1 (for NAND_BUSWIDTH_8) or > 2 (for NAND_BUSWIDTH_16). > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v4.17-rc7/source/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/qcom_nandc.c#L2347 > > Thanks, > Abhishek > > >> >> if (chip->options & NAND_BUSWIDTH_16) > >> - bad = bad || (nandc->data_buffer[bbpos + 1] != 0xff); > >> + bad = bad || (bbm_bytes_buf[1] != 0xff); As told in my previous reply, I missed the above line. However, after checking the code of the core (nand_base.c) I wonder if it is useful to check for the second byte. And if you look at the core's implementation you'll see that the offset is not always 0 in the OOB but maybe 5 for small page NAND chips. Please have a look to the generic implementation and tell me why this is really needed? Thanks, Miquèl -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
