From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:53:56 -0000 Subject: No subject 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 #define CONFIG_ENV_OFFSET 0x60000 #define CONFIG_ENV_SIZE 0x20000 root:/> fw_printenv Cannot read bad block mark: Invalid argument root:/> strace fw_printenv ioctl(0, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or SNDRV_TIMER_IOCTL_NEXT_DEVICE or TCGETS, {B57600 opost isig icanon echo ...}) =3D 0 ioctl(1, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or SNDRV_TIMER_IOCTL_NEXT_DEVICE or TCGETS, {B57600 opost isig icanon echo ...}) =3D 0 open("/etc/fw_env.config", O_RDONLY) =3D 3 ioctl(3, SNDCTL_TMR_TIMEBASE or SNDRV_TIMER_IOCTL_NEXT_DEVICE or TCGETS, 0x2decca8) =3D -1 ENOTTY (Inappropriate ioctl for device) mmap2(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANONYMOUS|0x4000000, 0, 0) =3D 0x203b000 read(3, "# Configuration file for fw_(pri"..., 256) =3D 256 read(3, "Flash sector size\tNumber of sect"..., 256) =3D 163 read(3, "", 256) =3D 0 close(3) =3D 0 stat("/dev/mtd0", {st_mode=3DS_IFCHR|0660, st_rdev=3Dmakedev(90, 0), = ...}) =3D 0 mmap2(NULL, 135168, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED|MAP_ANONYMOUS|0x4000000, 0, 0) =3D 0x2e00000 open("/dev/mtd0", O_RDONLY) =3D 3 ioctl(3, MEMGETINFO or MFB_SET_CHROMA_KEY, {type=3DMTD_NANDFLASH, flags=3DMTD_WRITEABLE, size=3D0x80000, erasesize=3D0x20000, = writesize=3D0x800, oobsize=3D0x40, padding=3D0xffffffff}) =3D 0 ioctl(3, MEMGETBADBLOCK, [393216]) =3D 1 ioctl(3, MEMGETBADBLOCK, [524288]) =3D -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument) write(2, "Cannot read bad block mark", 26Cannot read bad block mark) =3D 26 write(2, ": ", 2: ) =3D 2 write(2, "Invalid argument", 16Invalid argument) =3D 16 write(2, "\n", 1 ) =3D 1 close(3) =3D 0 _exit(1) =3D ? root:/> I've been dealing with Mike Frysinger on the linux-mtd list and he recommended that I shoot this up to you guys. His comment was "your config though says you only have 1 block starting at 0x60000 with a length of 0x20000. so there's no reason it should be testing 0x80000 -- after all, you only care about bytes 0x60000 - 0x7ffff." I am hoping there is something that I am doing that is causing this. I would appreciate some info. Thank you.