Re: NAND technical review

["Jürgen Lambrecht" <J.Lambrecht@televic.com>]

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Jürgen Lambrecht wrote:
>   
>> Ross Younger wrote:
>>     
>>> - E's high-level driver interface makes it harder to add new functions
>>> later, necessitating a change to that API (H2 above). R's does not; the
>>> requisite logic would only need to be added to the ANC. It is not thought
>>> that more than a handful such changes will ever be required, and it
>>> may be
>>> possible to maintain backwards compatibility. (As a case in point,
>>> support
>>> for hardware ECC is currently work-in-progress within eCosCentric, and
>>> does
>>> require such a change, but now is not the right time to discuss that.)
>>>       
>> Therefore we prefer R's model.
>>
>> Is it possible that R's model follows better the "general" structure of
>> drivers in eCos?
>> I mean: (I follow our CVS, could maybe differ from the final commit of
>> Rutger to eCos)
>> 1. with the low-level chip-specific code in /devs
>> (devs/flash/arm/at91/[board] and devs/flash/arm/at91/nfc, and
>> devs/flash/micron/nand)
>> 2. with the "middleware" in /io (io/flash_nand/current/src and there
>> /anc, /chip, /controller)
>> 3. with the high-level code in /fs
>>     
>
> I don't see E's model as being much different in that perspective. There
> is stuff in devs/flash, io/nand and (presumably) fs as well.
>
> The difference is more the separation out of the controller functionality
> into a different layer.
>
>   
>> Is it correct that R's abstraction makes it possible to add partitioning
>> easily?
>> (because that is an interesting feature of E's implementation)
>>     
>
> As Rutger said, it could be done - there's nothing in his design which
> presents it. It's not there now though, so unless someone's working on it
> it's probably not something to consider in the decision process.
> Especially since it would be a big user API change.
>
>   
>> We also prefer R's model of course because we started with R's model and
>> use it now.
>>     
>
> You haven't done any profiling by any luck have you? Or code size
> analysis? Although I haven't got into the detail of R's version yet (since
> I was starting with dissecting E's), both the footprint and the cumulative
> function call and indirection time overhead are concerns of mine.
>
>   
No...
>>> (b) Availability of drivers
>>>       
> [snip]
>   
>>> - One chip: the ST Micro 0xG chip (large page, x8 and x16 present but
>>> presumably only tested on the x8 chip on the BlackFin board?)
>>>
>>>       
>> - Two: also the Micron MT29F2G08AACWP-ET:D 256MB 3V3 NAND FLASH (2kB
>> page size, x8)
>> Because if this chip, Rutger adapted the hardware ECC controller code,
>> because our chip uses more bits (for details, ask Stijn or Rutger).
>>     
>
> I'd be interested in what the issue was. From admittedly a quick look I
> can't find anything about this in the code.
>   
Maybe Rutger can better answer this. Else Stijn can look-up his mail on 
this issue.
>   
>>> (d) Degree of testing
>>>       
> [snip]
>   
>> We have it very well tested, amongst others
>> - an automatic (continual) nand-flash test in a clima chamber
>> - stress tests: putting it full over and over again via FTP (both with
>> af few big and many small files) and check the heap remaining:
>>  * Put 25 files with a filesize of 10.000.000 bytes on the filesystem
>>  * Put 2500 files with a filesize of 100.000 bytes on the filesystem
>>  * Put 7000 files with a filesize of 10.000 bytes on the filesystem
>>  Conclusion: storing smaller files needs more heap, but we still have
>> plenty left with our 16MB
>>  * Write a bundle of files over and over again on the filesystem. We put
>> everytime 1000 files of 100.000 bytes filesize on the flash drive.
>> - used in the final mp3-player application
>>     
>
> That's extremely useful to know, thanks! But a couple of further questions
> on this: (1) Did any bad blocks show up at any point? (2) Were you using a bad
> block table? (3) Presumably there were factory-marked bad blocks on some?
>   
(3) Yes, there are almost always factory-marked bad blocks.
(2) yes
(1)Yes, certainly! We have from time to time bad blocks, and they are 
handled correctly.

Kind regards,
Jürgen
> Thanks,
>
> Jifl
> --
> --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine
>   
totally agree ;-)