From: Brendan J Simon <brendan.simon@ctam.com.au>
To: Linux MTD <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: doc2000 nftl[abcd] devices
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:34:25 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D12BAE1.3050400@ctam.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 10394.1024620838@redhat.com
David Woodhouse wrote:
>brendan.simon@ctam.com.au said:
>
>>I'm getting ENODEV. It seems that the NFTLs[] array doesn't have the
>>appropriate information. How is this setup ? I'm using modules so is
>> it initialised so I assume it's initialised when I do an "insmod
>>nftl".
>> Which routine scans the DOC2000 for NFTL devices and initialises the
>>NFTLs[] array.
>>
>
>NFTL_setup() from nftlcore.c and NFTL_mount() from nftlmount.c.
>
>Looking at them more closely, I see that I was mistaken -- we _don't_
>continue the scan after finding the first NFTL on the device. Patching
>NFTL_mount() and find_boot_record() to take a 'start' argument for where to
>start scanning is simple enough -- you just need to fix NFTL_setup() to
>loop till NFTL_mount() stops working.
>
I expect it's not as easy as you suggest (at least for me as all this
MTD, NFTL stuff is doing my head in).
In NFTL_mount, it uses the number of blocks supplied to it as
nftl->nb_blocks. This is set in NFTP_setup() just before NFTL_mount is
called. I think this is currently set to the entire mtd device (ie. the
DOC). I'll put some more printks to find out exactly what it is doing :)
I guess the alternative to is to scan from some start address till the
next media headers are found, then the size is known and it can be
passed backed to NFTL_setup (directly or indirectly).
Does this sound right ?
What about holes in the DOC. ie. What if I have nftl_formatted between
0x00000000-0x01FFFFFF & 0x04000000-0x7FFFFFFF. This has a hole between
0x02000000-0x03FFFFFF. Does NFTL_mount cater for this ? Should it ?
If so, does this mean that the Media Header needs to be searched to
find the start of the partition and then the next Media Header to find
the end of the partition. This seems wrong because the first partition
would be recognised as 4MB instead of 2MB. There must be some info in
the media headers that give the size of the partition. Any clues ?
I'll do some more research in the mean time.
Thanks,
Brendan Simon.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-21 5:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-20 4:52 doc2000 nftl[abcd] devices Brendan J Simon
2002-06-20 9:03 ` David Woodhouse
2002-06-21 0:41 ` Brendan J Simon
2002-06-21 0:53 ` David Woodhouse
2002-06-21 5:34 ` Brendan J Simon [this message]
2002-06-21 6:01 ` Brendan J Simon
2002-06-21 7:11 ` David Woodhouse
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=3D12BAE1.3050400@ctam.com.au \
--to=brendan.simon@ctam.com.au \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
/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