From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from florence.buici.com ([206.124.142.26] ident=qmailr) by pentafluge.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.30 #5 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1AsIy1-0007vx-EQ for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:53:37 +0000 Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 01:53:26 -0800 From: Marc Singer To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Message-ID: <20040215095325.GA27531@buici.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Can 256K erase blocks work with JFFS2? List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , In struggling through final steps in proving a new kernel port, I'm trying to mount a root filesystem so I can see a shell prompt. I've got a mapping driver with partitions that appears to work correctly. Yet, I'm concerned that the very large erase block size could be causing problems. When creating the jffs2 filesystem, if I set the erase block size to 256 then the filesystem created is twice the size of my total flash capacity--can't use it. The default of 64 produces a modest filesystem of 5MB. I'm pretty sure of the erase size. There are two StrataFlash 28F640J3A chips wired for a 32 bit data bus. Each has 8MBytes organized in 64 blocks. Moreover, empirical evidence shows that the erase size of 256K. The kernel will mount the filesystem as rootm but I don't get a shell. I'm reasonably confident that the root is good because it has worked when mounted over NFS. This new system uses the same CPU, but doesn't yet have a working network driver. So, I'm asking if I have a snowball's chance in hades with this. Or, should I start working on other means of mounting a root filesystem? TIA