MPC831x (and others?) NAND erase performance improvements

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com> wrote on 2010/12/08 18:18:39:
>
> 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.

Done, lets see what I get in return. I think this problem will be
a major obstacle for our next generation boards which will be NAND
based.

   Jocke