NAND partitioning

[Artem B. Bityuckiy]

On Sat, 2005-01-29 at 09:51 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Not necessarily.  I was actually thinking of having JFFS2 just "ignore"
> such eraseblocks.  Essentially treating them as bad blocks perhaps.
> 
> However, such blocks could be scattered across the entire device rather
> than contained within a certain address range on the chip.  Updating the
> data would be a bit tricky, which is why I said a driver would need to
> be created in order to deal with it.
> 
Hmm. If we have several binary blocks, and JFFS2 just skips them, why
should we have better wear-leveling? If we imagine we move binary blocks
sometimes, the wear-leveling would be really better.