A pair of stupid questions, I hope

A pair of stupid questions, I hope

[Ian S. Nelson]

My manufacturing people want a test that responds yes or no to the
question "is this sector locked?"

This seems like it should be pretty easy, but where and how do I
determine that? Is it something that is stored in the mem_region?  There
are lock and unlock ioctls but it's not obvious to me how to query if a
sector is locked? What is the proper way to do this?

then 4M flash..  It's looking more and more like we're going to move
from 2MB to a 4MB flash.  Supposedly the 4MB is banked and it's some
Toshiba part that isn't listed in the code as supported yet.  Do we
already support anything like that?  It looks easy enough to add support
for a new part and I'm eager to give it a try but I don't know about
this convoluted banking thing.  Any advice?

thanks,
Ian




To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: A pair of stupid questions, I hope

[David Woodhouse]

ian.nelson@echostar.com said:
> My manufacturing people want a test that responds yes or no to the
> question "is this sector locked?"

> This seems like it should be pretty easy, but where and how do I
> determine that? Is it something that is stored in the mem_region?
> There are lock and unlock ioctls but it's not obvious to me how to
> query if a sector is locked? What is the proper way to do this? 

Yeah, we should support that, but we currently don't have an API for it, and
obviously that means there's no code to do it for any of the currently
supported chipsets. Fairly trivial to do though. I'm not feeling inventive 
tonight. Propose an API extension and if it offends my sensibilities I'll 
have to think of something myself.


ian.nelson@echostar.com said:
>  It's looking more and more like we're going to move from 2MB to a 4MB
> flash.  Supposedly the 4MB is banked and it's some Toshiba part that
> isn't listed in the code as supported yet.  Do we already support
> anything like that?  It looks easy enough to add support for a new
> part and I'm eager to give it a try but I don't know about this
> convoluted banking thing.  Any advice?

If it's a NOR part it ought to be fairly trivial. If it's NAND, supporting
the part itself shouldn't be too hard, but JFFS2 doesn't work safely on it
yet. JFFS should, although I haven't tried it myself. And obviously you 
can't boot from NAND flash unless you have an external ROM or NOR flash 
somewhere for the CPU power-up vector.

--
dwmw2




To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: A pair of stupid questions, I hope

[Ian S. Nelson]

David Woodhouse wrote:

> ian.nelson@echostar.com said:
> > My manufacturing people want a test that responds yes or no to the
> > question "is this sector locked?"
>
> > This seems like it should be pretty easy, but where and how do I
> > determine that? Is it something that is stored in the mem_region?
> > There are lock and unlock ioctls but it's not obvious to me how to
> > query if a sector is locked? What is the proper way to do this?
>
> Yeah, we should support that, but we currently don't have an API for it, and
> obviously that means there's no code to do it for any of the currently
> supported chipsets. Fairly trivial to do though. I'm not feeling inventive
> tonight. Propose an API extension and if it offends my sensibilities I'll
> have to think of something myself.

I'll ask the guys who need it.  I suspect the proposal would be an ISLOCKED
ioctl that takes a region as an argument and returns a 0 or 1.   I'm a flash
novice though, is this something that should go in to one of those region
structures?


> ian.nelson@echostar.com said:
> >  It's looking more and more like we're going to move from 2MB to a 4MB
> > flash.  Supposedly the 4MB is banked and it's some Toshiba part that
> > isn't listed in the code as supported yet.  Do we already support
> > anything like that?  It looks easy enough to add support for a new
> > part and I'm eager to give it a try but I don't know about this
> > convoluted banking thing.  Any advice?
>
> If it's a NOR part it ought to be fairly trivial. If it's NAND, supporting
> the part itself shouldn't be too hard, but JFFS2 doesn't work safely on it
> yet. JFFS should, although I haven't tried it myself. And obviously you
> can't boot from NAND flash unless you have an external ROM or NOR flash
> somewhere for the CPU power-up vector.

That simplifies it because we will be booting off this flash.  Thanks for the
feedback though, I'll ping our hardware guys and make sure we're heading down
the right path.

Ian




To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: A pair of stupid questions, I hope

[David Woodhouse]

ian.nelson@echostar.com said:
>  I'll ask the guys who need it.  I suspect the proposal would be an
> ISLOCKED ioctl that takes a region as an argument and returns a 0 or
> 1.   I'm a flash novice though, is this something that should go in to
> one of those region structures? 

I was thinking of the internal API - what method do we add to the struct 
mtd_info, and how generic can we make it? Aren't there other similar 
per-block data which we may want to query on some chips?

--
dwmw2




To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

JFFS2 as root FS

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Hi there


Has anybody managed to get a root FS with JFFS2 to work?

I followed the mtd howto and I have a root partition(with the necessary
files) and
all I get is: "Kernel panic: I have no root and I want to scream"
message.

first I tried to use "rdev zvmlinux /dev/mtdblock1", but
the kernel ignored that an did a NFS mount as usual. I then
specified on the kernel commad line: root=/dev/mtdblock1
and the I got the kernel panic above.

Any Ideas?

    Jocke



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[David Woodhouse]

joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se said:
>  I followed the mtd howto and I have a root partition(with the
> necessary files) and all I get is: "Kernel panic: I have no root and I
> want to scream" message. 

Does it still happen with CONFIG_DEVFS_FS=n?

--
dwmw2




To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

RE: JFFS2 as root FS

[Joakim Tjernlund]

yes, I dont have devFS support compiled into the kernel.

 Jocke

-----Original Message-----
From: David Woodhouse [mailto:dwmw2@redhat.com]On Behalf Of David
Woodhouse
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 18:51
To: joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se
Cc: mtd@infradead.org
Subject: Re: JFFS2 as root FS 




joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se said:
>  I followed the mtd howto and I have a root partition(with the
> necessary files) and all I get is: "Kernel panic: I have no root and I
> want to scream" message. 

Does it still happen with CONFIG_DEVFS_FS=n?

--
dwmw2




To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[David Woodhouse]

joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se said:
> yes, I dont have devFS support compiled into the kernel. 

Hmmm. And do you have an entry for 'mtdblock' in the big array in 
init/main.c? 

--
dwmw2




To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[Vipin Malik]

Joakim Tjernlund wrote:

> Hi there
>
> Has anybody managed to get a root FS with JFFS2 to work?

Sure! But as you say that you followed the HOWTO, and since I wrote the
HOWTO,
I guess that something in my procedures tripped you up that worked ok for
me :)


>
> I followed the mtd howto and I have a root partition(with the necessary
> files) and
> all I get is: "Kernel panic: I have no root and I want to scream"
> message.

Hmm, what kernel version are you using? I've never seen that message (I've
seen Kernel panic: Unable to open root..blah blah..)


>
>
> first I tried to use "rdev zvmlinux /dev/mtdblock1", but
> the kernel ignored that an did a NFS mount as usual.

Wait, wait, wait. What do you mean by this? This is *a problem* right
here.

Why is it doing a NFS mount? Please describe your config and what you are
trying to do.
"usual" kernels don't NFS mount their root fs!



> I then
> specified on the kernel commad line: root=/dev/mtdblock1
> and the I got the kernel panic above.

Well, the kernel may not be able to understand the "mtdblock1" device by
name unless you patched
the init/main.c file to list a conversion table from mtdblockxx to a
*device number*.


>
>
> Any Ideas?

These are some.

Vipin



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[Joakim Tjernlund]

> 
> joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se said:
> > yes, I dont have devFS support compiled into the kernel. 
> 
> Hmmm. And do you have an entry for 'mtdblock' in the big array in 
> init/main.c? 

Don't know, I will have to check when I get back to work(I am home now)

           Jocke
> 
> --
> dwmw2
> 
> 



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[Joakim Tjernlund]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vipin Malik" <vipin.malik@daniel.com>
To: <joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se>
Cc: <mtd@infradead.org>
Sent: den 18 april 2001 19:11
Subject: Re: JFFS2 as root FS


> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > Hi there
> >
> > Has anybody managed to get a root FS with JFFS2 to work?
>
> Sure! But as you say that you followed the HOWTO, and since I wrote the
> HOWTO,
> I guess that something in my procedures tripped you up that worked ok for
> me :)

Dont think so, I think it's me :-)

>
>
> >
> > I followed the mtd howto and I have a root partition(with the necessary
> > files) and
> > all I get is: "Kernel panic: I have no root and I want to scream"
> > message.
>
> Hmm, what kernel version are you using? I've never seen that message (I've
> seen Kernel panic: Unable to open root..blah blah..)

I using a 2.4 kernel I pulled from Cort Dougan's PPC tree a few weeks ago.
Can't remeber which version rigth now, I will have to check when I get back
to work tomorrow. Should I change to the latest official kernel(2.4.3)?

>
>
> >
> >
> > first I tried to use "rdev zvmlinux /dev/mtdblock1", but
> > the kernel ignored that an did a NFS mount as usual.
>
> Wait, wait, wait. What do you mean by this? This is *a problem* right
> here.
>
> Why is it doing a NFS mount? Please describe your config and what you are
> trying to do.
> "usual" kernels don't NFS mount their root fs!

I am using an RPX CLLF board with a PPC869T. I found a config under
arch/ppc/defconfigs
(If my memory don't fail me)

In that config there were an automount(??) option enabled and a Root fs on
NFS option also
enabled.  I will  disable them and se what happens.


>
>
>
> > I then
> > specified on the kernel commad line: root=/dev/mtdblock1
> > and the I got the kernel panic above.
>
> Well, the kernel may not be able to understand the "mtdblock1" device by
> name unless you patched
> the init/main.c file to list a conversion table from mtdblockxx to a
> *device number*.

Well, this I have not done. Cant remember I saw that in the mtd howto, is
that patch
included in later kernels?



Other questions i have:

  Is mkfs.jffs2 Endian safe? I mean can I run mkfs.jffs2 on an Intel PC and
then copy it to my RPX board?

  Is there a way to disable compression in JFFS2?

I have also noted that sym links in JFFS2 have zero size,  a bug?

>
>
> >
> >
> > Any Ideas?
>
> These are some.
>
> Vipin
>



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[Vipin Malik]

Joakim Tjernlund wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vipin Malik" <vipin.malik@daniel.com>
> To: <joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se>
> Cc: <mtd@infradead.org>
> Sent: den 18 april 2001 19:11
> Subject: Re: JFFS2 as root FS
>
> > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > > Hi there
> > >
> > > Has anybody managed to get a root FS with JFFS2 to work?
> >
> > Sure! But as you say that you followed the HOWTO, and since I wrote the
> > HOWTO,
> > I guess that something in my procedures tripped you up that worked ok for
> > me :)
>
> Dont think so, I think it's me :-)
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I followed the mtd howto and I have a root partition(with the necessary
> > > files) and
> > > all I get is: "Kernel panic: I have no root and I want to scream"
> > > message.
> >
> > Hmm, what kernel version are you using? I've never seen that message (I've
> > seen Kernel panic: Unable to open root..blah blah..)
>
> I using a 2.4 kernel I pulled from Cort Dougan's PPC tree a few weeks ago.
> Can't remeber which version rigth now, I will have to check when I get back
> to work tomorrow. Should I change to the latest official kernel(2.4.3)?

I don't know. Never played with a non-x86 kernel (well if you don't count the
dragonball kernel variant).
I wouldn't think that you would need to update to the latest one, but i'll let
someone who know's reply.

Make sure that you have the latest sources from CVS patched in though. You
don't want to be playing with the
default mtd/jffs stuff that came with the kernel.


>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > first I tried to use "rdev zvmlinux /dev/mtdblock1", but
> > > the kernel ignored that an did a NFS mount as usual.
> >
> > Wait, wait, wait. What do you mean by this? This is *a problem* right
> > here.
> >
> > Why is it doing a NFS mount? Please describe your config and what you are
> > trying to do.
> > "usual" kernels don't NFS mount their root fs!
>
> I am using an RPX CLLF board with a PPC869T. I found a config under
> arch/ppc/defconfigs
> (If my memory don't fail me)
>
> In that config there were an automount(??) option enabled and a Root fs on
> NFS option also
> enabled.  I will  disable them and se what happens.

I don't think that just enabling these options actually *does* mount root over
nfs. It just allows
it. (Disclaimer: I've never mounted root over nfs myself so take this with a
pinch of salt).

>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > I then
> > > specified on the kernel commad line: root=/dev/mtdblock1
> > > and the I got the kernel panic above.
> >
> > Well, the kernel may not be able to understand the "mtdblock1" device by
> > name unless you patched
> > the init/main.c file to list a conversion table from mtdblockxx to a
> > *device number*.
>
> Well, this I have not done. Cant remember I saw that in the mtd howto, is
> that patch
> included in later kernels?

You don't need to apply the patch if you stick with the rdev stuff, as that
uses device numbers to
tell the kernel what root is.

You may have to dive into the kernel sources and put prink's to see that your
kernel thinks root device is
that it's  trying to mount. That'll tell you where the problem lies in the
first place.

If it doesn't say something like 31:1 (for /dev/mtdblock1) then your rdev
command did not take. Investigate that then.

If your root device is correct then investigate why it could not mount it. You
did run lilo after you did rdev?



>
>
> Other questions i have:
>
>   Is mkfs.jffs2 Endian safe? I mean can I run mkfs.jffs2 on an Intel PC and
> then copy it to my RPX board?

There *are* people using mtd/jffs on PPC. See the list archives for some issues
that people have had and their possible solutions.

Hmm, you'r not trying to mount jffs as root before you can manually mount it as
a "regular" partition under full manual control?
If you have endian issues, they should pop up at that time. Debugging endian
issues and root mounting problems is not a good plan.


>
>
>   Is there a way to disable compression in JFFS2?

Not that I know of. I think it's in the to-do list. Ask David W.

>
>
> I have also noted that sym links in JFFS2 have zero size,  a bug?

David?


Vipin



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[Joakim Tjernlund]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vipin Malik" <vipin.malik@daniel.com>
To: "Joakim Tjernlund" <Joakim.Tjernlund@lumentis.se>
Cc: <mtd@infradead.org>
Sent: den 18 april 2001 22:19
Subject: Re: JFFS2 as root FS


> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Vipin Malik" <vipin.malik@daniel.com>
> > To: <joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se>
> > Cc: <mtd@infradead.org>
> > Sent: den 18 april 2001 19:11
> > Subject: Re: JFFS2 as root FS
> >
> > > Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi there
> > > >
> > > > Has anybody managed to get a root FS with JFFS2 to work?
> > >
> > > Sure! But as you say that you followed the HOWTO, and since I wrote
the
> > > HOWTO,
> > > I guess that something in my procedures tripped you up that worked ok
for
> > > me :)
> >
> > Dont think so, I think it's me :-)
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I followed the mtd howto and I have a root partition(with the
necessary
> > > > files) and
> > > > all I get is: "Kernel panic: I have no root and I want to scream"
> > > > message.
> > >
> > > Hmm, what kernel version are you using? I've never seen that message
(I've
> > > seen Kernel panic: Unable to open root..blah blah..)
> >
> > I using a 2.4 kernel I pulled from Cort Dougan's PPC tree a few weeks
ago.
> > Can't remeber which version rigth now, I will have to check when I get
back
> > to work tomorrow. Should I change to the latest official kernel(2.4.3)?
>
> I don't know. Never played with a non-x86 kernel (well if you don't count
the
> dragonball kernel variant).
> I wouldn't think that you would need to update to the latest one, but i'll
let
> someone who know's reply.
>
> Make sure that you have the latest sources from CVS patched in though. You
> don't want to be playing with the
> default mtd/jffs stuff that came with the kernel.

yeah, I have the latest sources.

>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > first I tried to use "rdev zvmlinux /dev/mtdblock1", but
> > > > the kernel ignored that an did a NFS mount as usual.
> > >
> > > Wait, wait, wait. What do you mean by this? This is *a problem* right
> > > here.
> > >
> > > Why is it doing a NFS mount? Please describe your config and what you
are
> > > trying to do.
> > > "usual" kernels don't NFS mount their root fs!
> >
> > I am using an RPX CLLF board with a PPC869T. I found a config under
> > arch/ppc/defconfigs
> > (If my memory don't fail me)
> >
> > In that config there were an automount(??) option enabled and a Root fs
on
> > NFS option also
> > enabled.  I will  disable them and se what happens.
>
> I don't think that just enabling these options actually *does* mount root
over
> nfs. It just allows
> it. (Disclaimer: I've never mounted root over nfs myself so take this with
a
> pinch of salt).

hmm, there has to be something in my config which takes precedence over
rdev, otherwise
the kernel would try to mount mtdblock1 instead of doing a NFS mount. The
kernel
does a BOOTP request to find its IP address, maybe that also implies to
mount a NFS root
instead of mtdblock1?

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I then
> > > > specified on the kernel commad line: root=/dev/mtdblock1
> > > > and the I got the kernel panic above.
> > >
> > > Well, the kernel may not be able to understand the "mtdblock1" device
by
> > > name unless you patched
> > > the init/main.c file to list a conversion table from mtdblockxx to a
> > > *device number*.
> >
> > Well, this I have not done. Cant remember I saw that in the mtd howto,
is
> > that patch
> > included in later kernels?
>
> You don't need to apply the patch if you stick with the rdev stuff, as
that
> uses device numbers to
> tell the kernel what root is.

would be nice to try this patch to see if things start to work. Do how this
patch
looks?

>
> You may have to dive into the kernel sources and put prink's to see that
your
> kernel thinks root device is
> that it's  trying to mount. That'll tell you where the problem lies in the
> first place.
>
> If it doesn't say something like 31:1 (for /dev/mtdblock1) then your rdev
> command did not take. Investigate that then.
>
> If your root device is correct then investigate why it could not mount it.
You
> did run lilo after you did rdev?

Currently I let the RPX firmware boot the kernel via tftp. Is that whats
causing my problems?
I have not tried LILO since I think it can only handle x86. Can it do PPC as
well(with a JFFS2 root FS)?

>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Other questions i have:
> >
> >   Is mkfs.jffs2 Endian safe? I mean can I run mkfs.jffs2 on an Intel PC
and
> > then copy it to my RPX board?
>
> There *are* people using mtd/jffs on PPC. See the list archives for some
issues
> that people have had and their possible solutions.
>
> Hmm, you'r not trying to mount jffs as root before you can manually mount
it as
> a "regular" partition under full manual control?

No, I have mounted it manually first and then copied required files more or
less by hand.
I tried mkfs.jffs2, but it didn't work for me. Maybe I am doing something
wrong?
I did this: mkfs.jffs2 -d <path to my root fs dir> -o rootfs.image -e
0x40000
then on RPX: eraseall /dev/mtd1; cp rootfs.image /dev/mtd1(or was it
mtdblock1?)

that gave me lots of errors when mounting JFFS2 on /dev/mtdblock1
(don't have the error messages handy now)

Does mkfs.jffs2 handle dev files & sym links correctly?

> If you have endian issues, they should pop up at that time. Debugging
endian
> issues and root mounting problems is not a good plan.

heh, not a very good plan at all :-)

>
>
> >
> >
> >   Is there a way to disable compression in JFFS2?
>
> Not that I know of. I think it's in the to-do list. Ask David W.

David, is it possible?

>
> >
> >
> > I have also noted that sym links in JFFS2 have zero size,  a bug?
>
> David?
>
>
> Vipin

       Jocke



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[Florian Schirmer / TayTron]

Hi!

We had the same problem with root nfs instead of jffs(1). The problem
disappeared as soon as we removed the nfs root feature from the kernel
config. I dont know where the problem exactly is, but this is a (ugly)
solution.

Hope that helps
  Florian



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

RE: JFFS2 as root FS

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Hi again

By adding /dev/mtdblock1 to init/main.c I managed to make Linux recognize
my root FS on mtdblock1 :-)

Now I am having some other problems :-(
First it takes about 1 min 30 sec to mount my root FS. Is that expected? I
was hoping for a much shorter
mount time, 10-20 sec
The root partition is 15 MB and df reports:

Filesystem           1k-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/mtdblock1           15104      6580      8524  44% /mnt/mtdblock1

After the root FS is mounted, linux gets stuck right after message:
"Freeing unused kernel memory: 48k init"

I think that the next step is to run /sbin/init but that never happens.


 Jocke

Below is my console log


PlanetCore Boot Loader v1.02
Copyright 2000 Embedded Planet.  All rights reserved.
DRAM available size = 16 MB
wvCV
DRAM OK
>ru  << thist loads and executes the kernel via tftp >>

loaded at:     00210000 0021C57C
relocated to:  00180000 0018C57C
board data at: 001801B8 001801D4
relocated to:  00200100 0020011C
zimage at:     0024E583 002C725B
avail ram:     002C8000 01000000

Linux/PPC load: root=/dev/mtdblock1 rw
Uncompressing Linux...done.
Now booting the kernel
Linux version 2.4.3-pre6 (root@jocke.lumentis.se) (gcc version 2.95.2
19991030 (2.
95.3 prerelease/franzo)) #79 Thu Apr 19 10:35:54 CEST 2001
On node 0 totalpages: 4096
zone(0): 4096 pages.
zone(1): 0 pages.
zone(2): 0 pages.
Kernel command line: root=/dev/mtdblock1 rw
Decrementer Frequency = 180000000/60
Calibrating delay loop... 47.82 BogoMIPS
Memory: 14640k available (1004k kernel code, 376k data, 48k init, 0k
highmem)
Dentry-cache hash table entries: 2048 (order: 2, 16384 bytes)
Buffer-cache hash table entries: 1024 (order: 0, 4096 bytes)
Page-cache hash table entries: 4096 (order: 2, 16384 bytes)
Inode-cache hash table entries: 1024 (order: 1, 8192 bytes)
POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX
Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.4
Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039
Starting kswapd v1.8
CPM UART driver version 0.03
ttyS00 at 0x0280 is a SMC
ttyS01 at 0x0380 is a SMC
ttyS02 at 0x0100 is a SCC
ttyS03 at 0x0200 is a SCC
pty: 256 Unix98 ptys configured
block: queued sectors max/low 9648kB/3216kB, 64 slots per queue
RAMDISK driver initialized: 16 RAM disks of 4096K size 1024 blocksize
eth0: CPM ENET Version 0.2 on SCC1, 00:10:ec:00:26:1b
JFFS2 version 2.1. (C) 2001 Red Hat, Inc., designed by Axis Communications
AB.
loop: loaded (max 8 devices)
RPX Lite or CLLF flash device: 1000000 at ff000000
RPX: Found 4 x16 devices at 0x0 in 32-bit mode
 Amd/Fujitsu Extended Query Table v1.2 at 0x0040
number of CFI chips: 1
0: offset=0x0,size=0x8000,blocks=8
1: offset=0x40000,size=0x40000,blocks=63
mtd: Giving out device 0 to RPX App 0xff000000
mtd: Giving out device 1 to RPX User space1,
mtd: Giving out device 2 to RPX CLLF boot firmware
mtd: Giving out device 3 to RPX  User Space2, Empty
mtd: Giving out device 4 to RPX  Diag & Utils
NET4: Linux TCP/IP 1.0 for NET4.0
IP Protocols: ICMP, UDP, TCP, IGMP
IP: routing cache hash table of 512 buckets, 4Kbytes
TCP: Hash tables configured (established 1024 bind 1024)
Sending BOOTP requests.... OK
IP-Config: Got BOOTP answer from 192.168.1.38, my address is 192.168.1.150
NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0/SMP for Linux NET4.0.
mtdblock_open
ok
mtdblock: read on "RPX User space1" at 0x400, size 0x400
VFS: Mounted root (jffs2 filesystem).
Freeing unused kernel memory: 48k init

<< here I power cycle the board >>

A
 PlanetCore Boot Loader v1.02
Copyright 2000 Embedded Planet.  All rights reserved.
DRAM available size = 16 MB




To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

RE: JFFS2 as root FS

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Hi, it's me again :-)

I have tried to mount the FS again and the files are still there.
It still takes 1 min and 30 sec to mount it and sometime when I do a ls the
system hangs
for 10-20 sec before the output from ls is seen. Is this normal?

Maybe I should change my kernel, but to which? Linux 2.4.3? Or maybe a later
kernel from the PPC tree?

Also, when I boot the kernel it stops and ask for a kernel cmdline. Usually
I press
return here and the boot continues with my default values. How can I make
the kernel bypass
this and start without any questions asked?

   Jocke

-----Original Message-----
From: Florian Schirmer / TayTron [mailto:schirmer@taytron.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 15:02
To: joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se; 'Vipin Malik'
Cc: mtd@infradead.org
Subject: Re: JFFS2 as root FS


Hallo!

> By adding /dev/mtdblock1 to init/main.c I managed to make Linux recognize
> my root FS on mtdblock1 :-)
>
> Now I am having some other problems :-(
> First it takes about 1 min 30 sec to mount my root FS. Is that expected? I
> was hoping for a much shorter
> mount time, 10-20 sec

Did you try to mount the flash again under linux? We had a problem with the
endianess some time ago and run into the same trouble as you did. Mounting
took a long time and after that the flash was completely empty. Files cound
be moved onto it, but as soon as you re-mounted the flash it was empty
again. Try if this happens to you too.

I know its a wild guess but maybe it helps!

Happy hacking
   Florian



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[Florian Schirmer / TayTron]

Hallo!

> By adding /dev/mtdblock1 to init/main.c I managed to make Linux recognize
> my root FS on mtdblock1 :-)
>
> Now I am having some other problems :-(
> First it takes about 1 min 30 sec to mount my root FS. Is that expected? I
> was hoping for a much shorter
> mount time, 10-20 sec

Did you try to mount the flash again under linux? We had a problem with the
endianess some time ago and run into the same trouble as you did. Mounting
took a long time and after that the flash was completely empty. Files cound
be moved onto it, but as soon as you re-mounted the flash it was empty
again. Try if this happens to you too.

I know its a wild guess but maybe it helps!

Happy hacking
   Florian



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[David Woodhouse]

joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se said:
>  I have tried to mount the FS again and the files are still there. It
> still takes 1 min and 30 sec to mount it and sometime when I do a ls
> the system hangs for 10-20 sec before the output from ls is seen. Is
> this normal? 

That's very very slow. I don't know why it's being so slow for you. 

Your CPU isn't particularly fast, but that shouldn't really make _that_ 
much difference. 

Can you set CONFIG_JFFS2_FS_DEBUG=1 and set default_loglevel to 8 in kernel/
printk.c, then log the messages that it produces? I'd like to see if 
anything untoward is happening.

If it's really just being slow, then maybe you're going to need one or two 
of the features on the wishlist implemented - checkpointing and 
prepopulating inodes on mount.

--
dwmw2




To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, David Woodhouse wrote:

>
> joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se said:
> >  I have tried to mount the FS again and the files are still there. It
> > still takes 1 min and 30 sec to mount it and sometime when I do a ls
> > the system hangs for 10-20 sec before the output from ls is seen. Is
> > this normal?
>
> That's very very slow. I don't know why it's being so slow for you.

Maybe the flash access timing is awfully slow?  Default values for such
things are often the slowest.


Nicolas



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[Vipin Malik]

> Now I am having some other problems :-(
> First it takes about 1 min 30 sec to mount my root FS. Is that expected? I
> was hoping for a much shorter
> mount time, 10-20 sec
> The root partition is 15 MB and df reports:
>
> Filesystem           1k-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/mtdblock1           15104      6580      8524  44% /mnt/mtdblock1

Just for reference, my AMD SC520 -100MHz (a 100MHz 486+) with a 8MB, 57% full
JFFS2 f/s takes ~19 seconds to mount.
The flash is connected on a 32bit bus. Even if it takes 700us (for max wait
states on my system) per quad word read (32bits), the entire flash can be
read in 1.46 seconds.

Even if your flash is connected x8 wide, your flash read times should not be
more than 10-12seconds.

Obviously, as my flash read time is only ~2 seconds of my 19s fs mount time,
the processor speed plays quite a significant role in the mount process.

To test this theory, I upped the speed to 133MHz and then it took ~15seconds
to mount.
The increase in clock speed was 33%, the mount was (19-15)/15 = 26% faster.
However, if I remove the "constant" portion of the two mounts- the flash read
which is not any faster, then the increase in
mount speed  = ((19-1.46) - (15-1.46))/ (15 - 1.46) = 29.5% faster, almost
linear with the increase with clock speed!
(This also tells me that the code is executing primarily out of cache).

If you say, that your system takes ~90seconds to mount. Let's say that your
flash read time is ~10 seconds (for 16MB), then if all else is
ok, your processor should be ~80/17.5 = 4.5 times slower than mine. This
assumes equal amount of processing. But your processor is doing about
(6580/4636 = 140%) more
processing than mine. Assuming linear overhead, then the new factor is ~57/18
= 3.1X slower. (your flash usage is 6580 blocks, mine is 4636 blocks).

Now you say that you are using a MPC869T. I did not find a 869T on the web. I
presume that you meant 860T. At what MHz?

The 860T is claimed to have a performance of ~66 Dhrystone MIPS at 50MHz. I
downloaded Dhrystone 2.1 and that give me 51 mips at 100Mhz (and 67.7at
133MHz).

However, my 486 has a 16KB combined cache and a 66MHz SDRAM bus. The FLASH is
not cached, so the entire cache can be used for the instruction execution.
The 860T has only 4KB of instruction cache. Under some circumstances (when
the code fits in the cache in my processor and not in yours), the SC520 will
behave like a 100MHz machine while the PPC will be limited to the bus clock
speed. What is you bus clock speed (and your core clock speed).

If your BUS clock is ~25-33 MHz, it's not unbelievable that your processor
runs ~2-3X slower, specially if your processor core is running at <50MHz.
Also remember that execution from cache is significantly faster than
execution from EDO DRAM on the bus.

Something to think about. Of course it could be something completely
different, like a bug in David's code ;)

Vipin



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org

Re: JFFS2 as root FS

[Joakim Tjernlund]

Wow, that was an impressive analysis!

Regarding my HW, it is a PPC860T and it is running at 50MHz(48 to be exact
since the ext. clock is 8MHz
and the multiplier 6). The bus is supposed to run at the same speed, 48
MHz,(how do I check that?)
The Flash is on a 32 bit bus(4 in x8 mode), erase sector is 256KB.

hmm, mounting my fs should be quicker than 90 seconds.

     Jocke

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vipin Malik" <vipin.malik@daniel.com>
To: <joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se>
Cc: <mtd@infradead.org>; "Nicolas Pitre" <nico@cam.org>; "David Woodhouse"
<dwmw2@infradead.org>
Sent: den 19 april 2001 18:44
Subject: Re: JFFS2 as root FS


> > Now I am having some other problems :-(
> > First it takes about 1 min 30 sec to mount my root FS. Is that expected?
I
> > was hoping for a much shorter
> > mount time, 10-20 sec
> > The root partition is 15 MB and df reports:
> >
> > Filesystem           1k-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
> > /dev/mtdblock1           15104      6580      8524  44% /mnt/mtdblock1
>
> Just for reference, my AMD SC520 -100MHz (a 100MHz 486+) with a 8MB, 57%
full
> JFFS2 f/s takes ~19 seconds to mount.
> The flash is connected on a 32bit bus. Even if it takes 700us (for max
wait
> states on my system) per quad word read (32bits), the entire flash can be
> read in 1.46 seconds.
>
> Even if your flash is connected x8 wide, your flash read times should not
be
> more than 10-12seconds.
>
> Obviously, as my flash read time is only ~2 seconds of my 19s fs mount
time,
> the processor speed plays quite a significant role in the mount process.
>
> To test this theory, I upped the speed to 133MHz and then it took
~15seconds
> to mount.
> The increase in clock speed was 33%, the mount was (19-15)/15 = 26%
faster.
> However, if I remove the "constant" portion of the two mounts- the flash
read
> which is not any faster, then the increase in
> mount speed  = ((19-1.46) - (15-1.46))/ (15 - 1.46) = 29.5% faster, almost
> linear with the increase with clock speed!
> (This also tells me that the code is executing primarily out of cache).
>
> If you say, that your system takes ~90seconds to mount. Let's say that
your
> flash read time is ~10 seconds (for 16MB), then if all else is
> ok, your processor should be ~80/17.5 = 4.5 times slower than mine. This
> assumes equal amount of processing. But your processor is doing about
> (6580/4636 = 140%) more
> processing than mine. Assuming linear overhead, then the new factor is
~57/18
> = 3.1X slower. (your flash usage is 6580 blocks, mine is 4636 blocks).
>
> Now you say that you are using a MPC869T. I did not find a 869T on the
web. I
> presume that you meant 860T. At what MHz?
>
> The 860T is claimed to have a performance of ~66 Dhrystone MIPS at 50MHz.
I
> downloaded Dhrystone 2.1 and that give me 51 mips at 100Mhz (and 67.7at
> 133MHz).
>
> However, my 486 has a 16KB combined cache and a 66MHz SDRAM bus. The FLASH
is
> not cached, so the entire cache can be used for the instruction execution.
> The 860T has only 4KB of instruction cache. Under some circumstances (when
> the code fits in the cache in my processor and not in yours), the SC520
will
> behave like a 100MHz machine while the PPC will be limited to the bus
clock
> speed. What is you bus clock speed (and your core clock speed).
>
> If your BUS clock is ~25-33 MHz, it's not unbelievable that your processor
> runs ~2-3X slower, specially if your processor core is running at <50MHz.
> Also remember that execution from cache is significantly faster than
> execution from EDO DRAM on the bus.
>
> Something to think about. Of course it could be something completely
> different, like a bug in David's code ;)
>
> Vipin
>



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org