From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.sigma-star.at ([95.130.255.111]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1eKRZo-0005wp-Hk for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:20:45 +0000 From: Richard Weinberger To: Jaap de Jong , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: Mounting issue with old rootfs and new kernel Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:20:44 +0100 Message-ID: <6030766.nKoDj6T6s8@blindfold> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Jaap, Am Donnerstag, 30. November 2017, 16:42:33 CET schrieb Jaap de Jong: > Hi Richard, > > On 30-11-17 16:28, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > Jaap, > > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Jaap de Jong wrote: > >> Hi > >> > >> I'm hoping for some pointers. > >> > >> I have this a created with openembedded classic. > >> > >> It works just fine when running with an old kernel (2.6.35) > >> > >> Now with the same rootfs and a newer kernel (4.9.28) it damages the old > >> rootfs in such a way that it becomes unusable. > >> > >> This is the error it shows: > >> [ 1.523437] ubi0 error: > >> ubi_read_volume_table: the layout volume was > >> not found [ 1.531250] ubi0 error: > >> ubi_attach_mtd_dev: failed to attach mtd3, > >> error -22> > > Are these really the only erros/warnings from UBI? > > Yes. Also ran it without 'quiet' as kernel parameter and that also does > not show extra errors. Hm, but U-Boot comes first? Maybe it damaged the UBI image already. > If I boot u-boot and try to mount it there, some other errors are show > although basically the same > > U-Boot> ubi part rootfs > UBI: mtd1 is detached from ubi0 > Creating 1 MTD partitions on "nand0": > 0x000000100000-0x000020000000 : "mtd=3" > UBI: attaching mtd1 to ubi0 > UBI: physical eraseblock size: 131072 bytes (128 KiB) > UBI: logical eraseblock size: 129024 bytes > UBI: smallest flash I/O unit: 2048 > UBI: sub-page size: 512 > UBI: VID header offset: 512 (aligned 512) > UBI: data offset: 2048 > UBI: attached mtd1 to ubi0 > UBI: MTD device name: "mtd=3" > UBI: MTD device size: 511 MiB > UBI: number of good PEBs: 4088 > UBI: number of bad PEBs: 0 > UBI: max. allowed volumes: 128 > UBI: wear-leveling threshold: 4096 > UBI: number of internal volumes: 1 > UBI: number of user volumes: 1 > UBI: available PEBs: 40 > UBI: total number of reserved PEBs: 4048 > UBI: number of PEBs reserved for bad PEB handling: 40 > UBI: max/mean erase counter: 2/0 > > U-Boot> ubifsmount rootfs > UBIFS error (pid 0): ubifs_read_node: bad node type (255 but expected 6) > UBIFS error (pid 0): ubifs_read_node: bad node at LEB 0:0 > Error reading superblock on volume 'ubi:rootfs'! > > >> [ 1.539062] UBI error: cannot attach mtd3 > >> [ 1.546875] Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS: > >> Unable to mount root fs on unknown-block(0,0) [ > >> 1.546875] Rebooting in 1 seconds..RomBOOT > >> > >> As far as I can see the kernel configuration seems to be ok. > >> > >> Any ideas? > > > > If the MTD layout had changed I'd expect more errors from UBI. > > Is this NAND? > > Yes nandflash > > > Did you compare the MTD partition layout and number of bad blocks? > > Do you mean before and after? Yes. Something must be different. Page size? Sub pages? Number or erase blocks, etc... Thanks, //richard