From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:10:25 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 0/5] Add support for using an UBI volume for environment In-Reply-To: <511A67F9.6070902@ti.com> (from trini@ti.com on Tue Feb 12 10:04:09 2013) References: <1360636627.8517.15@snotra> <511A67F9.6070902@ti.com> Message-ID: <1360692625.24612.2@snotra> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 02/12/2013 10:04:09 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/11/2013 09:37 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On 02/08/2013 02:07:21 PM, Joe Hershberger wrote: > >> NAND is not good at handling absolute addresses to sectors for > >> storing particular data. The current implementation of the NAND > >> env support works around this in several ways such as storing a > >> pointer to the sector in the OOB of the first sector (interferes > >> with some CRC) or supporting a range of sectors (which unless it > >> is huge is not guaranteed to be safe). None of these options > >> address wear-leveling concerns or bad block handling. > >> > >> Accessing the u-boot env from UBI eliminates these concerns. > >> However, it does require some of the basic settings for finding > >> the UBI env to be in the default u-boot env. > > > > The downside is this moves us further away from having an > > environment available before relocation (e.g. loaded by SPL), > > which is important not just for serial config but also hwconfig, > > which can affect how RAM is set up among other things. > > > > Maybe the "OOB of first sector" approach could be changed to be > > more like how bad block tables are allocated, with a special > > marker in the env block's own OOB that we scan for. > > There's pluses and minuses to "throw more stuff in UBI". So long as > it doesn't break the ability to have env pre-relocation (and it > shouldn't, we already support env in a file), is there a problem here? > > Or just hoping to encourage other robust methods? The latter. -Scott