From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1783pj-0002H3-00 for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 19:49:07 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <20020515183403.3C15D2755@sitemail.everyone.net> References: <20020515183403.3C15D2755@sitemail.everyone.net> To: zeusj@firstlinux.net Cc: all in MTD mailinglist Subject: Re: misc question about MTD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 19:49:05 +0100 Message-ID: <16906.1021488545@redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: zeusj@firstlinux.net said: > I erased the flash, and I mount it(I do all these just like mount > JFFS),but I got the message that I have meet before (in the last board > I ported): > jffs2_scan_eraseblock(): Magic bitmask 0x1985 not found at 0x00020024: 0x2f0c instead > jffs2_scan_eraseblock(): Magic bitmask 0x1985 not found at 0x00020028: 0x0001 instead The flash is not completely erased. > Cowardly refusing to erase blocks on filesystem with no valid JFFS2 > nodes The flash is not completely erased, and doesn't contain _anything_ that looks like valid JFFS2 data, so we don't erase it and start using it, because you might have mounted the wrong partition. > I know the "Last[3] is 9da5, datum is 6246" message is to tell me that > what should be written is wrongly different from what be read from > flash,its a sanity check,but why a printk() can affects the Flash > write? Timing? You definitely have flash driver problems. -- dwmw2