From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WPfzb-0000lV-Rt for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 22:26:48 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WPfzF-0000GU-P4 for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:26:25 +0100 Received: from static-82-85-234-51.clienti.tiscali.it ([82.85.234.51]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:26:25 +0100 Received: from cristiano_dealti by static-82-85-234-51.clienti.tiscali.it with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:26:25 +0100 From: Cristiano De Alti Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 22:25:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20140317064328.GB18901@omega> 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: i.MX21 ADS NAND flash bad blocks scan. Barebox vs Linux To: barebox@lists.infradead.org Alexander Aring writes: > > Hi, > > just an idea... don't asking about why. But can you please disable > > ARM_OPTIMZED_STRING_FUNCTIONS > > and test it again? I will check something there... > > - Alex > I've disabled the above CONFIG in Barebox and I don't see any difference in the duration of the bad blocks scan. Should it take longer? What was the idea here? Thanks for your help. I didn't imagine supporting this board was still of some interest for someone ;) _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox