From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1REdm7-0001Nv-DN for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:09:55 +0000 Received: by wwf10 with SMTP id 10so1360427wwf.0 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 02:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: cfi_cmdset_0002.c SST39VF3201B issue From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Fabio Giovagnini Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:09:21 +0300 In-Reply-To: <1318067449.1586.2.camel@AURIO02> References: <4E8D9F14.4090108@gmail.com> <1317905313.4526.9.camel@AURIO02> <4E8DB0A1.5080202@gmail.com> <1318067449.1586.2.camel@AURIO02> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <1318583368.12351.77.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: angelo , "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 Sat, 2011-10-08 at 11:50 +0200, Fabio Giovagnini wrote: > Hi Angelo, > I have worked with 2.6.38 and I have used 0x50 command and modification > into mkfs.jffs2 utility in order to accomplish a 4k fs sector size. > It is working and I think that in a not so huge memory support a 4k > sector allows a better management rather than 64k sector. 4KiB is too small for JFFS2. If it works for you, it is only because you are lucky or you did not stress it well enough. Also, small eraseblocks just make JFFS2 much slower than it could be. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy