Hi Kyle, On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 15:01:50 -0500 Kyle Roeschley <[email protected]> wrote:
> If erasing or writing the BBT fails, we should mark the current BBT > block as bad and use the BBT descriptor to scan for the next available > unused block in the BBT. We should only return a failure if there isn't > any space left. > > Based on original code implemented by Jeff Westfahl > <[email protected]>. > > Signed-off-by: Kyle Roeschley <[email protected]> > Suggested-by: Jeff Westfahl <[email protected]> > --- > v5: De-duplicate bad block handling > > v4: Don't ignore write protection while marking bad BBT blocks > Correctly call block_markbad > Minor cleanups > > v3: Don't overload mtd->priv > Keep nand_erase_nand from erroring on protected BBT blocks > > v2: Mark OOB area in each block as well as BBT > Avoid marking read-only, bad address, or known bad blocks as bad > > drivers/mtd/nand/nand_bbt.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_bbt.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_bbt.c > index 2fbb523..c9255f8 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_bbt.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/nand_bbt.c > @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ static int write_bbt(struct mtd_info *mtd, uint8_t *buf, > { > struct nand_chip *this = mtd_to_nand(mtd); > struct erase_info einfo; > - int i, res, chip = 0; > + int i, res, chip = 0, found_bad_block = 0; > int bits, startblock, dir, page, offs, numblocks, sft, sftmsk; > int nrchips, pageoffs, ooboffs; > uint8_t msk[4]; > @@ -663,6 +663,27 @@ static int write_bbt(struct mtd_info *mtd, uint8_t *buf, > goto write; > } > > +next: > + if (found_bad_block) { > + /* > + * We found a bad block on the last loop iteration. > + * Mark it as such and see if there's another block > + * available in the BBT area. > + */ > + int block = page >> > + (this->bbt_erase_shift - this->page_shift); > + pr_info("nand_bbt: failed to erase block %d when > writing BBT\n", > + block); > + bbt_mark_entry(this, block, BBT_BLOCK_WORN); > + > + res = this->block_markbad(mtd, to); > + if (res) > + pr_warn("nand_bbt: error %d while marking block > %d bad\n", > + res, block); > + td->pages[chip] = -1; > + found_bad_block = 0; > + } > + Yet another label in this already non-trivial function. Can we do something like that [1][2] instead? Regards, Boris > /* > * Automatic placement of the bad block table. Search direction > * top -> down? > @@ -787,14 +808,21 @@ static int write_bbt(struct mtd_info *mtd, uint8_t *buf, > einfo.addr = to; > einfo.len = 1 << this->bbt_erase_shift; > res = nand_erase_nand(mtd, &einfo, 1); > - if (res < 0) > + if (res == -EIO) { > + found_bad_block = 1; > + goto next; > + } else if (res) { > goto outerr; > + } > > - res = scan_write_bbt(mtd, to, len, buf, > - td->options & NAND_BBT_NO_OOB ? NULL : > - &buf[len]); > - if (res < 0) > + res = scan_write_bbt(mtd, to, len, buf, td->options & > + NAND_BBT_NO_OOB ? NULL : &buf[len]); > + if (res == -EIO) { > + found_bad_block = 1; > + goto next; > + } else if (res) { > goto outerr; > + } > > pr_info("Bad block table written to 0x%012llx, version > 0x%02X\n", > (unsigned long long)to, td->version[chip]); [1]http://code.bulix.org/3xbnwr-104986 [2]http://code.bulix.org/e16nvo-104988
