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 1WROTi-000280-AL for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:08:59 +0000 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WROTJ-0001NH-St for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 17:08:34 +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 ; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 17:08:33 +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 ; Sat, 22 Mar 2014 17:08:33 +0100 From: Cristiano De Alti Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:08:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: 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 Cristiano De Alti writes: > This board has a 64MBi Samsung NAND flash that is detected both by Barebox > (recent snapshot) and Linux 3.4.77. > > The issue is that, while the bad blocks scan takes a negligible time on > Barebox, it takes 10 minutes to complete on Linux. I believe the NAND flash is faulty. Mechanically stressing the NAND flash card seems to speed up BB scan on Linux or detect more bad blocks. I wont's spend more time on this issue _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox