Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/15] mtd: nand: Add max_bad_eraseblocks_per_lun info to memorg

From: Boris Brezillon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 10:39:51 +0200

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 08:27:11 +0000
Schrempf Frieder <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Emil,
> 
> On 04.06.19 10:01, Emil Lenngren wrote:
> > Hi Miquel,
> >   
> >>   static const struct spinand_info macronix_spinand_table[] = {
> >>          SPINAND_INFO("MX35LF1GE4AB", 0x12,
> >> -                    NAND_MEMORG(1, 2048, 64, 64, 1024, 1, 1, 1),
> >> +                    NAND_MEMORG(1, 2048, 64, 64, 1024, 40, 1, 1, 1),
> >>                       NAND_ECCREQ(4, 512),
> >>                       SPINAND_INFO_OP_VARIANTS(&read_cache_variants,
> >>                                                &write_cache_variants,
> >> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static const struct spinand_info macronix_spinand_table[] = {
> >>                       SPINAND_ECCINFO(&mx35lfxge4ab_ooblayout,
> >>                                       mx35lf1ge4ab_ecc_get_status)),
> >>          SPINAND_INFO("MX35LF2GE4AB", 0x22,
> >> -                    NAND_MEMORG(1, 2048, 64, 64, 2048, 2, 1, 1),
> >> +                    NAND_MEMORG(1, 2048, 64, 64, 2048, 20, 2, 1, 1),
> >>                       NAND_ECCREQ(4, 512),  
> > 
> > Maybe a bit late to the discussion, but shouldn't 20 and 40 be swapped
> > here, i.e. isn't it the larger flash that has more max bad blocks than
> > the smaller one?  
> 
> I think Miquel is out of office for some days, so I just checked and you 
> are right, the maximum number of bad blocks should be swapped.
> 
> Actually there is also a wrong value in the GigaDevice driver: For the 
> GD5F4GQ4xA it should be 80 instead of 40.

Haven't checked the datasheet, but keep in mind that this is the max
number of eraseblock per LUN.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel