From 7de2e64e405611b91b0f37c71054085ed737041b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Wolfram Sang Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:10:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] mtd: nand: gpmi: use correct member for checking NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/981162 commit 5289966ea576a062b80319975b31b661c196ff9d upstream. This has been moved from .options to .bbt_options meanwhile. So, it currently checks for something totally different (NAND_OWN_BUFFERS) and decides according to that. Artem Bityutskiy: the options were moved in a40f734 mtd: nand: consolidate redundant flash-based BBT flags Artem Bityutskiy: CCing -stable Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang Acked-by: Huang Shijie Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman Signed-off-by: Leann Ogasawara Signed-off-by: Tim Gardner --- drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c index 493ec2f..f39f83e 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/gpmi-nand/gpmi-nand.c @@ -1124,7 +1124,7 @@ static int gpmi_block_markbad(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs) chip->bbt[block >> 2] |= 0x01 << ((block & 0x03) << 1); /* Do we have a flash based bad block table ? */ - if (chip->options & NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH) + if (chip->bbt_options & NAND_BBT_USE_FLASH) ret = nand_update_bbt(mtd, ofs); else { chipnr = (int)(ofs >> chip->chip_shift); -- 1.7.10.4