From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([62.4.15.54]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.85_2 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1cH4Dw-0001nc-Ji for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 07:43:37 +0000 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 08:43:03 +0100 From: Boris Brezillon To: Matthias Auchmann Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: UBI/UBIFS on NAND with PEB 4MB Message-ID: <20161214084303.0059cbf5@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <566B344A0B1AB14EB2486D887B6FF9E033AFEBBA17@SRV01.ARTech.local> References: <566B344A0B1AB14EB2486D887B6FF9E033AFEBBA17@SRV01.ARTech.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Matthias, On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 20:40:59 +0100 Matthias Auchmann wrote: > Hi guys! > > I'm trying to use UBI and UBIFS on a Micron MT29F32G08ABCDBJ4 SLC NAND with an erase block size 4MB. Woh! an SLC NAND with 4MB eraseblocks, that's surprizing. > > First of all, mkfs.ubifs wouldn't support a LEB larger than UBIFS_MAX_LEB_SZ being (2*1024*1024). This is the easy part ;). We already have patches to increase the limit in different ubi utils (IIRC, it's also needed in ubinize). > > When I use ubiattach though, it seems to be quite happy, giving me that on a 128MB partition: > > UBI device number 0, total 32 LEBs (133169152 bytes, 127.0 MiB), available 8 LEBs (33292288 bytes, 31.8 MiB), LEB size 4161536 bytes (4.0 MiB) > > Anyway, when I detach and reattach, it won't work. Details are in the bottom of that mail, but since I haven't thoroughly looked into it myself yet, this is only for those who care... I don't want to ask preliminary questions. > > Anyway, my questions I guess then are: > -) Are there any patches/branches that enable UBIFS to be run with a LEB of 4161536? > -) Are there any known limitations with using a 4MiB PEB with UBI itself, or shall I assume for now that the problem is on my board/NAND driver regarding the above ubiattach errors upon the second attach? I don't think so. We did several tests on different MLC NANDs exposing 4MB blocks, and the UBI/UBIFS layers were not complaining about that (we had other problems related to the MLC constraints). What's your controller? Regards, Boris