From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.105.134] helo=mgw-mx09.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Jkc4O-0001o4-7M for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:30:48 +0000 Subject: Re: Question about the size limitation of UBI From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Kyungmin Park In-Reply-To: <9c9fda240804111953s1ef73ecbh4e648a740c77dd0f@mail.gmail.com> References: <9c9fda240804111953s1ef73ecbh4e648a740c77dd0f@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:28:34 +0300 Message-Id: <1207992514.5965.103.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Kyungmin On Sat, 2008-04-12 at 11:53 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > It's similar question with MTD size limitation. If I have a 16GiB, or > 32GiB NAND, then does UBI support this chips? > or similarly it needs to modify its fields? UBI addressing is Eraseblock number:offset within eraseblock, not a 32-bit absolute offset as in case of JFFS2. So, UBI limitation is that the flash has to have not more then 2^31 eraseblocks, which is a huge size. UBI will barely ever run on such devices. > I saw the UBI2 word I don't remember the which mail. > Anyway as you know it has a scalability problem. It scans all blocks. > So do you have any plan to address this one? or any ideas? Yes, we have some ideas, but we are not planning to do UBI2 so far. Although we want to create a short document with ideas about about UBI2 design. --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)