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

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Tue, 2012-01-17 at 10:22 +0000, Angus CLARK wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 10:28 PM, Artem Bityutskiy 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.
> 
> This seems to be contrary to the advice given by the various NAND manufacturers
> (with a quite unusual show of consensus!)  Once a block has been deemed to have
> gone bad, one cannot rely on *any* operations being successful, and that
> includes writing a bad block marker to the OOB area.  The recommended approach
> has for some time been to use a Flash-resident bad block table, with an initial
> scan for the manufacturer-programmed bad-block markers.

OK, thanks for correction and information.

-- 
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/20120117/3e1e1ae9/attachment.sig>