On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:59 +0300, Artem B. Bityutskiy wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Wake up please. Thats going to be reality for NAND based stuff in the
> > future. The controllers will expose the raw FLASH but claim the OOB area
> > for their own purpose - hardware based error correction.
> One of my colleagues said a very interesting argument against this.
>
> Look, consider all those CompactFlash cards. They are NAND flash based.
> They have a kind of block device emulation built-in. And I bet they use
> OOB to store the logical block number corresponding to this physical
> block. The block device over Flash device emulation is so widespread, so
> vendors will never forbid OOB usage.
I did nowhere say, that oob usage will be forbidden.
> From this point of view, OOB is no going to go.
The CF controller does its own closed proprietary magic and looking at
the robustness of those cards I dont want to know what it does.
The OOB usage of a closed device is in no way relevant for a discussion
about a robust, sane and quite generic solution for handling NAND flash
devices inside of Linux.
I don't care what those chips do unless they run Linux inside.
tglx
(text/plain)