On 2/10/06, Claudio Lanconelli wrote: > Jon Masters wrote: > >On 2/9/06, Claudio Lanconelli wrote: > >>In case of ECC error fixed during read, erase the block and write it > >>again with the same data and read verification, if the ECC still fails retire the > >>block. > >I think that's a bad idea. The block should be marked as bad. It's not > >worth losing data just to save out on theorectically marking a good > >block bad - it doesn't seem to happen in practice. I'd rather lose all > >of the good blocks than lose any data, so would many other people. > But if you loose ALL good blocks you loose also your data! ;-) Sure, but that can be handled ("this device has failed") and is unlikely to happen in practice. > >>That's because Toshiba document says about soft errors: "This condition > >>is cleared by a block erase". > >Sure. But it might be indicative of a problem nonetheless. > Is this statement based on any documentation or on your personal experience? I don't trust datasheets or hardware vendors above my own judgement - and that is that I'm not willing to risk losing data no matter how many times it might imply all is ok. > Sorry, I don't want to raise a flame war, I just want to understand > YAFFS bad block marking policy, and if there is a better solution. Yeah. So, I think the policy was already explained - my own views are incidental to that and I wouldn't worry about them too much. I'm just saying that I like to be paranoid :-) > Excuse me for my English, it's not my natural language. Your English is very good indeed. Jon.