From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-eopbgr740130.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([40.107.74.130] helo=NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iLTMn-000675-R0 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:36:35 +0000 From: "Barbier, Renaud" Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 14:36:31 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20190926064116.aix5mx2fwtbqyrzc@pengutronix.de> <20190927064405.lfcibvom2xo3awy6@pengutronix.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: RE: barebox 2019.07 ubiformat To: "Barbier, Renaud" , Sascha Hauer Cc: "barebox@lists.infradead.org" Back from holidays I have not been able to repeat the issue on the upstream DA923RC. It is now booting after ubiformatting using v2019.07. Looking back in my commit history I found that in 2016.03 I replaced the barebox nand_ecc by the Linux nand_ecc file to work around this issue on ourP1014 platforms. While debugging using the barebox nand_ecc, I applied patched found in U-boot. This did not solve the problem. Our NAND uses 512 bytes for ecc size. The barebox eccsize is hard-coded to 256. Even setting to 512 did not help. Should the nand_calculate_ecc algorithm be different for a 512 bytes size? > -----Original Message----- > From: barebox [mailto:barebox-bounces@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of > Barbier, Renaud > Sent: 27 September 2019 09:44 > To: Sascha Hauer > Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org > Subject: RE: barebox 2019.07 ubiformat > > > > [**EXTERNAL SOURCE**]:Please verify the source before clicking link or > opening attachment. > > > Not all blocks seem to be unreadable. Have you looked into subpage > > reads? subpage reads have been enabled in 18ea738 ("mtd: nand: Enable > > subpage reads"), but on the other hand that commit is already included > > in 2016.07. Anyway, maybe the old barebox doesn't do subpage reads for > > some reason. > > What ECC are you using, software or hardware? Is it still the same in > > the new barebox or are you maybe ending up with some other ECC scheme? > [Barbier, Renaud] > The PPC platforms uses software ECC. I will compare with our ARM platforms > that uses hardware ECC. > Thanks for the information. Answer hopefully in two weeks as I am going in > holidays > > Cheers, > Renaud > > _______________________________________________ > barebox mailing list > barebox@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox