From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com ([209.85.214.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PM0fZ-0006sZ-Rl for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:57:07 +0000 Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so2038538bwz.36 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 07:57:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: change in how ubiformat works From: Artem Bityutskiy To: twebb In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 17:56:32 +0200 Message-ID: <1290786992.2552.24.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 13:47 -0500, twebb wrote: > I use a sequence as follows: " flash_erase - ubiformat - nanddump - > verify " to confirm that a UBI image was properly stored in NAND > flash. I realize that flash_erase is not recommended because it > destroys erase counters, but this is only done on virgin flash so > should not be an issue. > > However, I recently upgraded the mtd-utils, and particularly ubiformat > from 1.4 to 1.5, and now I see that what I read back (via nanddump) > does not match the original UBI image. Can anyone confirm whether > ubiformat.c changes sometime between 1.4 and 1.5 would result in this > behavior? I have looked at ubiformat.c changes and am wondering if it > has to do with image sequence number support. Try to bisect it and find the commit id which changed the behavior. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)