On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 08:44:08PM +0000, Cristiano De Alti wrote: > Hi, > I'm probably posting to the wrong list since this is Linux issue. > I'm still trying to revive this old board. > > This board has a 64MBi Samsung NAND flash that is detected both by Barebox > (recent snapshot) and Linux 3.4.77. > > The issue is that, while the bad blocks scan takes a negligible time on > Barebox, it takes 10 minutes to complete on Linux. > They both detect block 0 as a bad block. This is strange since it is > guaranteed to be good by the manufacturer but I've read the OOB data with > barebox and it's marked ad bad. I found this board in the lab and don't know > how it was used before. > > Barebox code, nand_imx.c, and Linux code, mxc_nand.c, are similar but not > identical of course. I also think that Linux code was contributed by > Pengutronix so this is the reason I'm asking here. > > I've enabled debug statements in Linux code and added my own statements. > As said, scan completes, everything looks OK but it is very slow. I assume this is a 512 byte page Nand, right? In this case you shouldn't have any issues with bad block marker swapping. An issue could be that one party uses a bad block table wereas the other scans each time. I recommend using a bad block table for barebox and the kernel. Maybe somebody has marked block 0 as bad to see whether the ROM Code handles this properly. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
