From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Egholm Nielsen Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:24:22 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Re: JFFS2+U-Boot writing an image that has been "SUMMARY"-patched? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Dave, >>I'm considering patching my Linux kernel JFFS2 code with the "summary" >>patch: >>http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/jffs2/mount.php >>decreasing mount time severely. In short, this patch requires modifying >>some data in the end of each eraseblock - also in the image that should >>be written. >>However, I'm planning on using u-boot to write the Linux root-fs - using >>"nand write.jffs2" - and was wondering whether this function >>(write.jffs2) actually cared about what it was writing? > When I added the option all it did was allow skipping of bad blocks > (since JFFS2 blocks don't care where they are in the FLASH) and write > the oob data properly for JFFS2. It didn't (and I think still > doesn't) examine the JFFS2 data at all. As long as the summary data > is location independent it should be OK. Super, I kinda guessed that! >> I tried writing "giberish" memory data using write.jffs2, and it >> didn't complain, though. But still, its name ".jffs2" indicate that >> some knowledge of jffs2 is used? > > I only meant it to indicate that the option is for writing jffs2 > images, so if changes or added features would break jffs2 > compatibility (and some were proposed a while ago) the changes should > not be made to the jffs2 option, they would need a new one. > Makes sense! Thanks for sorting that out - I'll head for jffs2+summary now, then... // Martin