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

[Artem Bityutskiy]

[Sorry, did not finish the e-mail :-)]

On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 10:23 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Well, I am 100% not sure of course. But think that because marking blocks as bad using OOB is
> the standard way, and vendors know about this, and they know that flash
> bad blocks become bad, they will probably make try to make this
> mechanism work for the users. But even if this is not true for a
> specific chip, then the users should have BBT, and it will be used. But
> I do not believe that 

that current MTD BBT is reliable enough for modern flashes. For such
a hypothetical chip ti would have to be carefully assessed.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/attachments/20120117/d72a0548/attachment.sig>