On 2/10/06, Peter Barada <peterb@logicpd.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 15:39 +0000, Jon Masters wrote:

> > On 2/9/06, Peter Barada <peterb@logicpd.com> wrote:

> > >  I use a YAFFS1 NOR-based system, and in the writes, we lay
> > > down the data chunk, and then the tag.  In the unlikely event that a
> > > power-cycle occurs while writing the data, the tag is still empty, but
> > > some of the data chunk is not erased, and then next time a write occurs
> > > into that chunk, YAFFS sees that the write fails since the previous data
> > > was written(and retires the whole block), even though the tag indicated
> > > the chunk is empty.

> > That does seem to be preferable over writing the tag twice.

> Why?

It just seems to go against the design philosophy of YAFFS, but, as
you point out, you're only changing a single bit. It just doesn't seem
right as a general solution to the problem.

Jon.