Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:42:55 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Abhishek Sahu <absahu@codeaurora.org>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mtd: rawnand: qcom: update BBT related flags
Message-ID: <20180718234255.4e51c188@xps13>
In-Reply-To: <20180718234144.158217f2@xps13>
References: <1530863519-5564-1-git-send-email-absahu@codeaurora.org>
        <1530863519-5564-5-git-send-email-absahu@codeaurora.org>
        <20180718231526.38046099@xps13>
        <20180718233637.49a39751@bbrezillon>
        <20180718234144.158217f2@xps13>
Organization: Bootlin
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Abhishek,

Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote on Wed, 18 Jul 2018
23:41:44 +0200:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> wrote on Wed, 18 Jul 2018
> 23:36:37 +0200:
> 
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 23:15:26 +0200
> > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > Hi Abhishek,
> > > 
> > > Abhishek Sahu <absahu@codeaurora.org> wrote on Fri,  6 Jul 2018
> > > 13:21:58 +0530:
> > >     
> > > > Remove the NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN to use RAM based BBT.      
> > > 
> > > Unless I am understanding it the wrong way, NAND_SKIP_BBTSCAN will skip
> > > the scan of the on-chip BBT and will scan every block to construct a
> > > RAM, based BBT thanks to the BBM.
> > > 
> > > So flash based BBT is already unused and removing this flag is a
> > > mistake, right?    
> >   
> > ->scan_bbt() is also taking care of building the in-RAM BBT based on    
> > BBM when no on-flash BBT is provided, so I think it's the right thing
> > to do.  
> 
> Oh right. Then doing so is harmless.

Could you please update the commit log to reflect this aspect?

> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> Miquèl