[PATCH v3 0/6] NAND BBM + BBT updates

[Shmulik Ladkani]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:12:11 +0200 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 09:58 +0200, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 00:28:45 +0200 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In my view, OOB BB markers is the primary, reliable, and simple
> > > mechanism. And BBT is just an additional optimization to speed up system
> > > startup.
> > > 
> > > So in general I support Brian's efforts
> > 
> > I'm in favor of this approach as well.
> > However IMO it should (1) be 'bbt_options' configurable;
> 
> Why does it have to be configurable? Do you have some example in mind?
> 

Can't tell if it's a good enough reason, but it looks like some are
happy with existing behavior (do not expect on-flash BBT reliability
issues, or pleased with current handling of it, and have no
bootloader/kernel OOB-vs-BBT configuration clashes), and as such, they
are simply not interested of this change.
Must it be enforced?

Also, the change introduces some fine nuances (the OOB BBM test needed
within chip->block_markbad, or alternatively, lazy sync code).
Wouldn't it be better to have them scoped using a config?

Regards
Shmulik