From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com>
Cc: u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net,
Bernard Blackham <bernard@largestprime.net>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] ubi and u-boot
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:29:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080420172937.GA16184@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1208709853.6654.23.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org>
Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt wrote (Message-ID: <20080407073227.GA6317@cloud.net.au>):
> > > Sorry I should've said 512MiB perhaps: 512 megabytes.
> > > UBI attach time appears to be about 6 seconds.
> >
> > If 6 seconds is as fast as it can be done, annoying but fair enough.
>
> You should read that thread a bit more carefully. The scan time is
> highly dependent upon the NAND driver beneath UBI. For example, a UBI
> scan/attach on a 1GiB device on OLPC was 2 seconds.
Ah, I intended to quote the 2 seconds too but forgot, sorry. I think
2 seconds per gigabyte is a significant time, too, but not so much.
The followup suggested it was due to the speed of the chip, not so
much the driver.
> > Adding _another_ 6 seconds to the boot time seems a lot to me.
>
> You mean adding another "X amount of time depending on factors outside
> of UBI's control."
Well, yes, that would be a reason to consider whether doing it is a
good idea :-)
> > I can understand the hesitation, but I think 6 seconds just to find
> > the kernel - especially when doing a 'disk resume' - is quite a lot.
>
> You should really stop quoting this 6 second number.
Let's call it 2 seconds per gigabyte, then.
> > Note that I haven't tried UBI myself yet. I'm going on what has been
> > written to the list so far, as quoted above.
>
> Maybe you should try it :).
I will when good looking figures are being quoted on the list ;-)
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-20 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-18 14:21 ubi and u-boot Bernard Blackham
2008-04-18 16:40 ` [U-Boot-Users] " Josh Boyer
2008-04-18 16:59 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-18 17:49 ` Bernard Blackham
2008-04-20 22:22 ` Wolfgang Denk
2008-04-21 12:05 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2008-04-21 13:36 ` Ricard Wanderlof
2008-04-21 13:44 ` Josh Boyer
2008-04-21 13:50 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2008-04-21 14:01 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2008-04-22 11:44 ` Ricard Wanderlof
2008-04-22 12:30 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-18 19:19 ` Josh Boyer
2008-04-20 16:04 ` Jamie Lokier
2008-04-20 16:44 ` Josh Boyer
2008-04-20 17:29 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2008-04-21 1:05 ` Hamish Moffatt
2008-04-19 9:25 ` Artem Bityutskiy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080420172937.GA16184@shareable.org \
--to=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=bernard@largestprime.net \
--cc=jwboyer@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox