* pekon <pekon@xxxxxxxxxxx> [141109 11:31]: > On Saturday 08 November 2014 04:18 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > >Right. I doubt anybody has bch8 rootfs on LDP.. And considering u-boot > >must be ham1 to boot at all, that's what we should change for the > >devices that do not have not standardized on bch8. > > > My view on this is slightly different: > - Lately, everyone seems to have migrated to BCH8. > > - Also HAM1 does not have strength to fix bitflips in aging NAND. So if > someone already has OMAP3-LDP deployed on field then its NAND would have > already aged to such an extend that HAM1 may not be sufficient. OK so it makes sense to keep it as BCH8 then. Would be nice to get the writing u-boot from kernel issue fixed somehow though as people are hitting that for sure. > My question is.. > Moving back to HAM1 should be decided based on statistics rather than rule > of breaking backward compatibility. So please review: > (1) How many user of OMAP3-Zoom or other old boards complaining about using > BCH8 in mainline kernel? OR 0 > (2) How many users of OMAP3 legacy boards are migrating to newer kernel? Quite a few for sure, but are probably also using rootfs on MMC instead. > At-least I have not, rather most of the OMAP3 users I interacted via TI's > E2E forum wanted to migrate to BCH8 or even BCH16, as HAM1 was not > sufficient for their usage. > > So whatever you decide on this topic, please be cautious that you don't > re-invent work for yourself, as I did. It took me lot of time and testing > effort on multiple boards to migrate HAM1 to BCH8, And add BCH16 for newer > devices. Right no objections to using BCH8 for rootfs, except it stopped working over past year or so. And it seems the settings should be partition specific because of u-boot requiring HAM1. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
