From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lazybastard.de ([212.112.238.170] helo=longford.lazybastard.org) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1I8iXl-0005Y4-Pr for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:12:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:08:46 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel To: Chuck Meade Subject: Re: jffs2 eraseblock size, and actual flash device eraseblock size Message-ID: <20070711200846.GA837@lazybastard.org> References: <4689F10B.9040401@mindspring.com> <469527A3.7030203@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <469527A3.7030203@mindspring.com> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 11 July 2007 14:55:31 -0400, Chuck Meade wrote: > > Any ideas at all on this? I am looking for input on the following: > 1. If it is a workable solution to have the same jffs2 image being used > on devices of two different erase block sizes. Unlikely. > 2. If so, which is the preferrable method, to generate the jffs2 image > specifying the smaller or the larger of the two erase block sizes, > and why? If you choose the larger size you will have data loss. The smaller size may or may not work. I leave the required analysis to you. I'd bet small coins against you, large notes if you have summary enabled on your image. Jörn -- When people work hard for you for a pat on the back, you've got to give them that pat. -- Robert Heinlein