bad block markers + ONFI

[Brian Norris]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 16:52 -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
>> So I came up with a few options:
>> (a) Implement (A) for all ONFI-capable NAND
>> (b) Implement a flag for (A) without enforcing it for all ONFI NAND
>> (allow driver to specify, perhaps?)
>> (c) Make no change
>
> Well, if we know that some NANDs will break with a), then probably it is
> not an option, so we have only b) and c), right?

I suppose.

I can't see how a driver would really want to use (b), though.
Essentially, the driver would have to have foreknowledge that the NAND
actually follows the ONFI BBM spec.

And (c) is a disappointing alternative. Still, it may not have much
practical effect, since, for instance, scanning just 1st page instead
of 1st and last does not usually cause any difference in bad block
detection.

Brian