Re: jffs2 problem

Hinko Kocevar
2005-07-19T12:19:49Z

Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote:
> Hinko Kocevar wrote:
>
>> There you go. This is with JFFS2 debug set to 2 and MTD debug set to 3.
>> ...
>> NET: Registered protocol family 17
>> jffs2_scan_eraseblock(): Magic bitmask 0x1985 not found at 0x00000000:
>> 0x234a instead
>
>
> Even though you enabled JFFS2 debugging,
> the debugging messages are not seen on your console.
>
> Could you please dump the first N (say, 128) bytes at the offset
> 0x00000000 of the JFFS2 partition (/dev/mtd2)? Does it contain 0x234a
> (LE) as the first 16-bit word?
>

Creating 3 MTD partitions on "Trizeps2 flash":
0x00000000-0x00060000 : "Bootloader"
mtd: Giving out device 0 to Bootloader
0x00060000-0x00140000 : "Kernel"
mtd: Giving out device 1 to Kernel
0x00140000-0x01000000 : "Filesystem"
mtd: Giving out device 2 to Filesystem

Core#0>md 0x140000
00140000 : 20031985 0000000c e41eb0b1 e0011985 ... ............
00140010 : 0000002b 7d266ee6 00000001 00000000 +....n&}........
00140020 : 00000002 424913b1 00000403 daeea20c ......IB........
00140030 : 556683ff ff6e6962 e0021985 00000044 ..fUbin.....D...
00140040 : 98f7fb1d 00000002 00000001 000041ed .............A..
00140050 : 006403e8 00000000 424913b1 424913b1 ..d.......IB..IB
00140060 : 424913b1 00000000 00000000 00000000 ..IB............
00140070 : 00000000 00000000 379225cb e0011985 .........%.7....
00140080 : 0000002b 7d266ee6 00000001 00000001 +....n&}........
00140090 : 00000003 4242dd58 00000403 855955ad ....X.BB.....UY.
001400a0 : ee322817 ff766564 e0021985 00000044 .(2.dev.....D...
001400b0 : 98f7fb1d 00000003 00000001 000041ed .............A..
001400c0 : 006403e8 00000000 4242dd58 4242dd58 ..d.....X.BBX.BB
001400d0 : 4242dd58 00000000 00000000 00000000 X.BB............
001400e0 : 00000000 00000000 c54033c0 e0011985 .........3@.....
001400f0 : 0000002b 7d266ee6 00000001 00000002 +....n&}........

I've spotted possible problem here - it seems that kernel overwrites part of
the rootfs at the begining - I have reserved 0xe0000 for kernel partition, but
I noticed that my newer kernels are larger than this. Need to check this out...

--
..because under Linux "if something is possible in principle,
then it is already implemented or somebody is working on it".

--LKI