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

[Woodhouse, David]

On Sat, 2012-01-14 at 00:36 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> I think so, because it is distributed, and it is historically the way
> blocks had been marked as bad, and I thing vendors make sure this
> mechanism works. 

They make sure it works for *them* at manufacturing time, sure. But what
makes you so sure it'll work for *us*?

They may have special ways to clear or even fuse out the the appropriate
bits during manufacture, that we can't do from software. Or maybe they
just throw away any chip where a bad block is *so* bad that they can't
even clear the bad block marker? That might not affect their yield so
much when it's used only for factory-bad blocks, but if we do it for
*all* blocks that go bad at runtime, it's a different calculation. And a
more 'interesting' failure mode because when we find it out, it's
already in production.

So I wouldn't necessarily assume that what works for them, will work for
us.

-- 
                   Sent with MeeGo's ActiveSync support.

David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse at intel.com                              Intel Corporation


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4370 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/attachments/20120116/7d34a70d/attachment.bin>