From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1REdT4-0000wK-7O for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:50:14 +0000 Received: by wwg9 with SMTP id 9so547824wwg.18 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 01:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E97F7C2.1050803@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:50:10 +0200 From: angelo MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dedekind1@gmail.com Subject: Re: erase block < 8KiB References: <4E8977DF.1030808@gmail.com> <1318581933.12351.70.camel@sauron> In-Reply-To: <1318581933.12351.70.camel@sauron> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 14/10/2011 10:45, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 10:52 +0200, angelo wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> i read several mail about this limitation. >> >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2011-February/033851.html >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2011-June/036498.html >> >> >> I have a 4 KiB erase-size, common of some SST nor flash'es like mine >> (SST 39VF3201B). >> >> From all the posts i read here in the list, there seems not to be any >> solution guaranteed. >> >> The tricky change to mkfs.jffs2 don't work for me. It seems to work for >> small files, but i still get error messages copying a 600KB file in the >> partition. >> If it's true that the minimal jffs2 block is 4KB + some bytes, of course >> the patch to mkfs.jffs2 can't work. >> >> Some one suggested the "virtual erase block" solution. I would like to >> try to implement it, if i have the time. >> >> In any case, for the common users, is there maybe another flash file >> system that can work with 4KiB erase size ? >> > Just hack your driver and make it emulate larger eraseblocks and make > JFFS2 happy. Should not be difficult. > > I already done this, and posted the patch for 64 KB sector. But i none here still answered to the question : why the cfi_cmdset_0002 selects for this flash the 4KB sector instead of the 64KB ? In this way, the non-working of jffs2 is guaranteed, since the minimal block size is 4K + some bytes. regards. angelo