From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fed1mtao01.cox.net ([68.6.19.244]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 17tt14-0001ID-00 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:58:30 +0100 Subject: Re: Interest in DOC and YAFFS? --> YAFFS bootloading From: Russ Dill To: Marc Singer Cc: Charles Manning , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, yaffs@toby-churchill.org In-Reply-To: <20020924165351.GA2533@buici.com> References: <200209231220.12682.ayalon@tadlys.com> <20020924014556.6EC8B43F2@tiger.actrix.co.nz> <20020924034410.GA18915@buici.com> <20020924040150.A1499145FF@dragon.actrix.co.nz> <20020924044434.GA23917@buici.com> <1032854017.13283.3.camel@russ> <20020924165351.GA2533@buici.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 24 Sep 2002 09:59:03 -0700 Message-Id: <1032886743.13283.6.camel@russ> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 09:53, Marc Singer wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 12:53:36AM -0700, Russ Dill wrote: > > > > > Some people think that writing a new kernel would be easy. %^) > > > > > > The trouble is coming up with a convenient method. LILO stores a list > > > of blocks. GRUB reads filesystems. GRUB is better in the long run, > > > but harder to implement. > > > > I've written a cramfs reader for grub, to use on the DOC, and grub works > > great on a DOC. Although the grub code is a bit ugly, and there are a > > few gotchas, writing a module is pretty straight forward. That being > > said, writing a module to load files of a journaled fs (jffs2), is a bit > > more time consuming, but as I understand yaffs is greatly optimized > > towards NAND (as apposed to NOR) flash layout and lends itself to easy > > reading (same sized blocks, no compression iirc). > > > > If I were you, I'd use grub. > > That's what I'd expect. > > A question, though. I've been doing compression tests with cramfs. > I'm finding that gzip -9 of an ext2 filesystem produces smaller images > than mkcramfs. Have you ever compared the two? cramfs is meant to be lean, fast, and low on ram consumption, if you compress the whole thing at once, you have to load the whole thing into ram to read any of it, so cramfs compresses PAGE_CACHE (4096) sized pages at a time