[PATCH 0/1] Bad block markers here, there and everywhere

[Ezequiel Garcia]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 08:01:26PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:07:43AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:00:20AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > This commit adds a new option called NAND_BBT_DATA_BBM. The change itself
> > > is pretty small and simple to understand: when the badblock_pattern sets the
> > > NAND_BBT_DATA_BBM option, scan_block_fast() reads the data region instead
> > > of the OOB region.
> > 
> > I think this type of scanning method is better suited to a different
> > type of solution: implement a custom nand_chip.bad_block() call-back.
> 
> Fully agreed (I guess you mean block_bad() right?)
> 
> > Unfortunately, nand_base/nand_bbt are kind of inconsistent, so that some
> > code paths use nand_chip.bad_block() and some use nand_bbt.c's scanning
> > code to check for bad block markers, so this is not currently a good
> > solution.
> > 
> 
> Which is why I couldn't implement a custom block_bad(). My particular
> use case (which could match others) needs this customization in the
> first scan. After that, once the bad block table is built, the in-flash
> bad block markers are never touched.
> 
> > I've been meaning to follow through with an improved version of this
> > patch for a while:
> > 
> >   http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2012-June/042571.html
> > 
> > Such a patch provides several benefits, one of them being that drivers
> > like yours can easily provide a custom BBM location. What do you think?
> > 
> 
> Of course, that sounds much more flexible. Let me pick it where Matthieu left,
> I'll read the patch and prepare something to discuss.
> 
> On the other side, I'm seeing the above patch was a bit argued :/ I'm
> not sure why it got never merged, maybe you can give me some heads up
> about potential drawbacks?

After reading the patch and reading the code, now I'm even more confused :)

The first thing that seems odd is the fact that the scan_block_fast()
path matches a pattern (which can be several bytes long), whereas the
default nand_block_bad() seem to check for just one byte.

This may or may not be an issue, after some thought, but it's not
a trivial change, IMHO.

The second thing, which was already discussed back in June-2012 is the
fact that scan_block_fast() uses mtd_read_oob() to read, but
nand_block_bad() just issues a READOOB command.

So, what do you propose? If you can give me some guidelines I've no problem
in preparing a (first/draft) patch to trigger the discussion.
-- 
Ezequiel García, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com