2012/8/20 Artem Bityutskiy :
> On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 08:55 +0200, Richard Genoud wrote:
>> Hi Artem,
>> 2012/8/19 Artem Bityutskiy :
>> > Yeah, I wanted to make it 1..256 but forgot, will do now. 0..256 would
>> > need some more work to avoid division by 0.
>> Division by 0 is handled in the get_ba
On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 08:55 +0200, Richard Genoud wrote:
> Hi Artem,
> 2012/8/19 Artem Bityutskiy :
> > Yeah, I wanted to make it 1..256 but forgot, will do now. 0..256 would
> > need some more work to avoid division by 0.
> Division by 0 is handled in the get_bad_peb_limit() function, I don't
> se
Hi Artem,
2012/8/19 Artem Bityutskiy :
> Yeah, I wanted to make it 1..256 but forgot, will do now. 0..256 would
> need some more work to avoid division by 0.
Division by 0 is handled in the get_bad_peb_limit() function, I don't
see another dangerous place.
So, I think that we can change back the ra
On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 10:09 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:33:32 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy
> wrote:
> > We do not have that big user-base. No one uses 0 in the tree, most use
> > the default. I never heard anyone using 0. I did not use it also. I
> > think it is OK to have th
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:33:32 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> We do not have that big user-base. No one uses 0 in the tree, most use
> the default. I never heard anyone using 0. I did not use it also. I
> think it is OK to have the lower range start from non-zero. But why it
> is 2 and not 1 - I am
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 16:30 +0200, Richard Genoud wrote:
> > (there's one platform known to do so in its defconfig, that's
> > sam9_l9260_defconfig, which uses 3% instead of the "standard" 2%).
> I found the board:
> https://www.olimex.com/dev/sam9-L9260.html
> and the nand datasheet:
> http://www.
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 16:50 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> Yes, but the main drawback I was referring to is those platforms already
> setting MTD_UBI_BEB_RESERVE other than the default, by means of kernel
> configuration.
> (there's one platform known to do so in its defconfig, that's
> sam9_l9260
2012/8/16 Shmulik Ladkani :
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:28:38 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 11:57 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
>> >
>> > For the simplest systems (those having one ubi device) that need a
>> > limit
>> > *other* than the default (20 per 1024), they can sim
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:28:38 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 11:57 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
> >
> > For the simplest systems (those having one ubi device) that need a
> > limit
> > *other* than the default (20 per 1024), they can simply set the config
> > to their chose
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 13:42 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
>
> Does it make sense to set a zero limit? dunno.
> For testing purposes, maybe.
>
> Artem, what do you think? prohibit a zero beb limit?
We do not have that big user-base. No one uses 0 in the tree, most use
the default. I never heard
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 11:57 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote:
>
> For the simplest systems (those having one ubi device) that need a
> limit
> *other* than the default (20 per 1024), they can simply set the config
> to their chosen value, as they were used to.
>
> With you approach, these system MUST
Hi Richard, Artem,
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:07:01 +0200 Richard Genoud
wrote:
> > With you approach, these system MUST pass the limit parameter via the
> > ioctl / module-parameter.
> That's right.
> We can add a kernel config option to change the max_beb_per1024
> default value (actually, this is
2012/8/16 Shmulik Ladkani :
> Hi Richard,
>
> Sorry for reviewing this late...
>
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:23:42 +0200 Richard Genoud
> wrote:
>> -config MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT
>> - int "Maximum expected bad eraseblocks per 1024 eraseblocks"
>> - default 20
>> - range 2 256
>
> I see some b
Hi Richard,
Sorry for reviewing this late...
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:23:42 +0200 Richard Genoud
wrote:
> -config MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT
> - int "Maximum expected bad eraseblocks per 1024 eraseblocks"
> - default 20
> - range 2 256
I see some benefit keeping the config.
For the simplest
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 18:23 +0200, Richard Genoud wrote:
> This patch provides the possibility to adjust the "maximum expected number of
> bad blocks per 1024 blocks" (max_beb_per1024) for each mtd device.
>
> The majority of NAND devices have their max_beb_per1024 equal to 20, but
> sometimes it'
This patch provides the possibility to adjust the "maximum expected number of
bad blocks per 1024 blocks" (max_beb_per1024) for each mtd device.
The majority of NAND devices have their max_beb_per1024 equal to 20, but
sometimes it's more.
Now, we can adjust that via a kernel parameter:
ubi.mtd=[,[
16 matches
Mail list logo