From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from co202.xi-lite.net ([149.6.83.202]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1OJkA7-00042a-2x for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:23:02 +0000 Received: from ONYX.xi-lite.lan (unknown [193.34.35.243]) by co202.xi-lite.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72943260287 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2010 11:22:49 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4C0622E6.7070203@parrot.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 11:22:46 +0200 From: Matthieu CASTET MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" Subject: ubi question Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, I have some question about ubi implementation. I have read most of the "drivers/mtd/ubi/ubi-media.h" documentation. The doc is not very clear about the case when data_size is set for dynamic volume. From my understanding it is set in case copy_flag is set and the value is the logical eraseblock size. When a block with copy_flag set, when we append data (and make the crc invalid), do we make sure that all previous version of this logical eraseblock are removed from flash ? Why layout volume isn't a static volume with one eraseblock and update done with atomic leb update (copy flag) ? This would have : - make the crc ckeck done by generic code (static volume one) - make the handling of update by generic code - avoid to having to handle dynamic volume in minimalist implementation (bootloader) Do I miss something ? Matthieu