Hi Charles,
How about this patch? Is it work with your patch?

Br
White Ding 
____________________________
EBU APAC Application Engineering
Tel:86-21-38997078
Mobile: 86-13761729112
Address: No 601 Fasai Rd, Waigaoqiao Free Trade Zone Pudong, Shanghai, China

-----Original Message-----
From: bpqw 
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 2:37 PM
To: Charles Manning; bpqw
Cc: yaffs@lists.aleph1.co.uk
Subject: RE: [Yaffs] bad block management

Hi Charles,
I have create a patch for mtd, please check and try to work with your patch.

Br
White Ding
____________________________
EBU APAC Application Engineering
Tel:86-21-38997078
Mobile: 86-13761729112
Address: No 601 Fasai Rd, Waigaoqiao Free Trade Zone Pudong, Shanghai, China

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Manning [mailto:cdhmanning@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:28 AM
To: bpqw
Cc: yaffs@lists.aleph1.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Yaffs] bad block management

Hello White Ding

Ok, I have put together a patch showing the changes for the yaffs core. This is attached. I hope it works.

If you can make the patches for the mtd to issue YAFFS_ECC_RESULT_REFRESH when required then you can send that to me and we can hook it all up.

Regards Charles

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 12:46 PM, bpqw <bpqw@micron.com> wrote:
> Hi Charles,
> I am clear,
> Currently there is no YAFFS_ECC_RESULT_REFRESH, so we need to add this 
> case and the threshold as you recommend should be (refresh_threshold + ecc_strength + 1) /2, I will plan to create a patch for this.
> Do you have any proposal?
>
> Br
> White Ding
> ____________________________
> EBU APAC Application Engineering
> Tel:86-21-38997078
> Mobile: 86-13761729112
> Address: No 601 Fasai Rd, Waigaoqiao Free Trade Zone Pudong, Shanghai, 
> China
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Manning [mailto:cdhmanning@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 5:44 AM
> To: bpqw
> Cc: yaffs@lists.aleph1.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [Yaffs] bad block management
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 7:26 PM, bpqw <bpqw@micron.com> wrote:
>> Hi Clarles,
>> We recommended if the bitflip over threshold we just need to refresh the block but not retire it.
>> So we doubt is it reasonable just according to the bitflips over
>> mtd->bitflip_threshold over three times to judge the block as bad block?
>>
>
> Hello White Ding
>
> I certainly understand where you are coming from here.
>
> The concern this raises is that we then lose the safety net of retiring blocks before they go bad.
>
> What we really need is two thresholds in mtd: refresh only, refresh and apply retiring logic.
>
> I suppose we could use bitflip_threshold and bitflip_strength for those, or maybe something slightly different to give more margin.
> Unfortunately the threshold and strength are often set to be the same.
>
> So I would like to use something that can be made up called, say, retire_limit.
> Where
> retire_limit = (refresh_threshold + ecc_strength + 1) /2.
>
>
> For that to work Yaffs needs another level of ECC error.
>
> How about this:
> enum yaffs_ecc_result {
>     YAFFS_ECC_RESULT_UNKNOWN,
>     YAFFS_ECC_RESULT_NO_ERROR,
>     YAFFS_ECC_RESULT_REFRESH,
>     YAFFS_ECC_RESULT_FIXED,
>     YAFFS_ECC_RESULT_UNFIXED
> };
>
> Then we can have something like, say:
>
> if errors < bitflip_threshold --> NO_ERROR else if errors < 
> retire_limit --> REFRESH else if not corrupted --> FIXED else --> 
> UNFIXED
>
> So for a concrete example, let us say we have something where:
> ecc_strength = 8, bitflip_threshold = 4 then we would have 
> retire_limit = 6
>
> So we would get the following behaviour:
>
> * 0 to 3 errors --> NO_ERROR
> * 4 to 5 errors --> REFRESH (refresh only)
> * 6 to 8 errors -->FIXED (refresh and increment chunk_error_strikes)
> * more than that --> UNFIXED.
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Charles