MPC831x (and others?) NAND erase performance improvements

[Scott Wood]

On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 08:59:49 +0100
Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund at transmode.se> wrote:

> >
> > On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 22:15:54 -0500
> > Mark Mason <mason at postdiluvian.org> wrote:
> >
> > > A few months ago I ran into some performance problems involving
> > > UBI/NAND erases holding other devices off the LBC on an MPC8315.  I
> > > found a solution for this, which worked well, at least with the
> > > hardware I was working with.  I suspect the same problem affects other
> > > PPCs, probably including multicore devices, and maybe other
> > > architectures as well.
> > >
> > > I don't have experience with similar NAND controllers on other
> > > devices, so I'd like to explain what I found and see if someone who's
> > > more familiar with the family and/or driver can tell if this is
> > > useful.
> > >
> > > The problem cropped up when there was a lot of traffic to the NAND
> > > (Samsung K9WAGU08U1B-PIB0), with the NAND being on the LBC along with
> > > a video chip that needed constant and prompt attention.
> >
> > If you attach NAND to the LBC, you should not attach anything else to
> > it which is latency-sensitive.
> 
> This "feature" makes the LBC useless to us. Is there some workaround or plan
> to address this limitation?

Complain to your support or sales contact.

I've complained about it in the past, and got a "but pins are a limited
resource!" response.  They need to hear that it's a problem from
customers.

-Scott