Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1201421 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mtd: nand: use nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk in default ECC read functions

Started byAndrea Scian <rnd4@dave-tech.it>
First post2015-08-06 06:30 +0200
Last post2015-08-06 06:30 +0200
Articles 1 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mtd: nand: use nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk in  default ECC read functions Andrea Scian <rnd4@dave-tech.it> - 2015-08-06 06:30 +0200

#1201421 — Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mtd: nand: use nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk in default ECC read functions

FromAndrea Scian <rnd4@dave-tech.it>
Date2015-08-06 06:30 +0200
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mtd: nand: use nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk in default ECC read functions
Message-ID<pUkYx-659-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Il 04/08/2015 09:21, Richard Weinberger ha scritto:
> Andrea,
>
> Am 04.08.2015 um 09:02 schrieb Andrea Scian:
>>> I'm not sure whether introducing a read-before-write check is the best solution.
>>> At least we need hard numbers for slow/old SLC NANDs too.
>>
>> We can enable the feature only for MLC, AFAIK it has not been required for old SLC ;-)
>
> I think this needs more discussion.
>
> Boris, Brian, will you be at Embedded Linux Conference Europe in Dublin?
> Maybe we can discuss these issues (data retention, ff-checks, etc...) in person and
 > figure out where to address them.
> I really want to avoid ad-hoc solutions. :)

Maybe I'll be at ELCE this year too
I'll be glad to meet all of you in person and participate to this 
discussion. :)

It will be nice if also some silicon vendor would like to participate. I 
know that someone from micron is actively following us on this ML, but I 
don't really know if there's someone here in Europe. :)

>
>> Thanks.
>> In your opinion, enabling chk_io is correct to rough estimate the overhead
 >> or does it enable too much checks?
>
> You mean the other checks bedside of self_check_write()? You can comment them out
 > for your tests.
>
> Thanks,
> //richard
>

Kind Regards,

-- 

Andrea SCIAN

DAVE Embedded Systems
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web