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

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 20:59 +0000, Woodhouse, David wrote:
> 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*?

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 

-- 
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/bed48fbc/attachment.sig>