[U-Boot-Users] RE: Nand OOB layout, u-boot and the kernel sources do not agree.. ??

[Dave Ellis]

Richard Woodruff wrote: 
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 1:57 PM
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Woodruff, Richard 
> > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 12:45 PM
> > While trying to resolve what the OOB data layout should be I 
> > see that the kernel headers as of 8-10-2002 have changed such 
> > that both the NAND_JFFS2 and NAND_NOOB use position 5 for bad 
> > block data.  The u-boot headers do not reflect this 
> > change...doesn't this mean u-boot will be incompatible with 
> > more recent kernels?  Should u-boot's headers be updated here?

Position 5 is where the chip makers mark bad sectors, so we do not
get a choice. The NAND_NOOB values in U-BOOT are wrong and should
be changed to match the new ones in the Linux kernel. I think the
original cmd_nand.c was based on a very old version of MTD.

> ... Having more up to date definitions would seem better....as 
> raw nand doesn't seem to be well supported except with jffs2 &
> possibly yaffs I don't suppose the NAND_NOOB is such a concern.

I don't know what software (if any) uses NAND_NOOB, but I think the
definitions still should be fixed (or removed). In my patch to
cmd_nand.c
I hard coded the bad block position at 5, so they can't be used
as they are.

Dave

Dave Ellis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SIXNET - "Leading the Industrial Ethernet Revolution"
331 Ushers Road,   P.O. Box 767, Clifton Park, NY 12065 USA
Tel +1 (518) 877-5173   Fax +1 (518) 877-8346
Email me at: dge at sixnetio.com 
Detailed product info: www.sixnetio.com 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~