From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ew0-f49.google.com ([209.85.215.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1PkgKD-0000wa-G8 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 17:17:02 +0000 Received: by ewy20 with SMTP id 20so153907ewy.36 for ; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 09:17:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] UBIFS: fix recovery on CFI NOR From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Holger Brunck In-Reply-To: <4D497663.3070806@keymile.com> References: <1296634917-19335-1-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com> <4D497663.3070806@keymile.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 19:16:11 +0200 Message-ID: <1296666971.30461.8.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Anatolij Gustschin , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , Norbert van Bolhuis Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 16:21 +0100, Holger Brunck wrote: > I have tested this patches on an ppc82xx and ppc83xx boards with different NOR > flashes with different writebuffers (64 and 1024 bytes) and check wether I am > able to mount previous created UBIFS partitions and this works without any > problems. So the incompatbility seems to be solved. Additionaly I tried it on a > NAND based system and this runs also without problems. OK, thanks! > Another question related to the writebuffer adaptions for UBI. What should be > done during creation of ubi images on a host system with ubinize if your patches > find their way in the "standard" UBI/UBIFS code. Nothing, when creating images you specify min. I/O size, which is 1 in case of NOR. > In the past we had "only" NOR > flashes with a writebuffer of 64 bytes and we create our ubi images without the > -m parameter during executing ubinize for the esw image. No, you always specify 1. Your flash still allows writing 1 byte at a time, and this is the minimum, so you set -m 1. 64 is the internal detail, the "optimal" write size. UBIFS will automatically pick it up and will try to write in 64-byte chunks at a time, but not always, only when it is possible. > Now we got a new flash > with writebuffer = 1024. Whats the way forward in the future? Is it ok to omit > the "-m" parameter or do we have to create the images with "-m 64" or "-m 1024"? Similarly, just use -m 1 -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)