On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 8:32 AM Richard Weinberger <rich...@nod.at> wrote: > > Lars, > > Am Sonntag, 23. September 2018, 15:49:42 CEST schrieb Lars Persson: > > Hi Richard > > > > Sorry, I assumed this omission from -stable was a mistake. > > > > The timing for our boot increased from 45 seconds to 55 seconds on one > > chip and 42 seconds to 48 seconds on another chip. The regression was > > completely fixed by applying the extra patches. The way I see it the > > first patch is a significant slow-down so the second patch is required > > to restore performance. > > okay, this is not good. Let's put the performance patch also into -stable > to get rid of that regression. > Usually I'm rather conservative with adding non-trivial material to -stable. > As history has shown, Fastmap is special. ;-) > > Out of interest, what flashes are these? I'm interested in page vs. erase > size. > Did you give UBIFS bulk-read try? >
Richard, sorry for the late follow-up. Below are the NAND chips that we use on the affected products. The products have different NAND timings, some ONFI mode 0 and some ONFI mode 2, so not lightning fast access to the NAND. nand: Toshiba NAND 256MiB 3,3V 8-bit nand: 256 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 128 nand: Micron MT29F2G08ABAFA 2G 3.3V 8-bit nand: 256 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 128 nand: AMD/Spansion S34ML04G2 nand: 512 MiB, SLC, erase size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, OOB size: 128 - Lars
