Re: [PATCH] distroboot: Fix ubifs

Pali Rohár
2022-07-05T10:15:36Z

On Wednesday 29 June 2022 12:29:40 Frieder Schrempf wrote:
> Am 23.06.22 um 18:09 schrieb Pali Rohár:
> > On Tuesday 31 May 2022 10:32:36 Pali Rohár wrote:
> >> Fix multiple issues in ubifs distroboot code:
> >>
> >> U-Boot supports attaching only one MTD device as UBI at the time. So
> >> always call 'ubifsmount ubi0:${bootubivol}' for mounting UBI volume
> >> ${bootubivol}. Usage of 'ubi${devnum}' is incorrect as 'ubi part'
> >> command attach MTD device always as UBI device ubi0.
> >>
> >> Set distroboot ${bootfstype} variable to ubifs in ubifs_boot command.
> >> Distroboot scripts require ${bootfstype} variable to be properly set and it
> >> is already set for all other boot types.
> >>
> >> Set distroboot ${distro_bootpart} variable to ${bootubivol} value. UBI
> >> device does not have partitions, but has volumes. Distroboot scripts
> >> require something to be set in ${distro_bootpart} variable, so set it to
> >> the UBI volume which is currently mounted by ubifs.
> >>
> >> Set distroboot ${devnum} variable to fixed string "ubi0". ubifs code
> >> differs from the other partition code that it requires "ubi" prefix before
> >> number.
> >>
> >> Explicitly unmount ubifs volume after loading all data from it. This allows
> >> to detach UBI device from MTD device.
> >>
> >> Move definition of MTD device with UBI and UBI volume with ubifs filesystem
> >> from global env variables ${bootubipart} and ${bootubivol} into the
> >> distroboot "func" macro, defined in board include config files. UBIFS
> >> distroboot macros then set ${bootubipart} and ${bootubivol} local variables
> >> for compatibility with existing distroboot scripts.
> >>
> >> This last change allows to define more UBIFS target devices and make it
> >> clear what is boot MTD/UBI device.
> >>
> >> All board include config files are adjusted to use this new scheme of
> >> specifying boot MTD/UBI device.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@kernel.org>
> >
> > PING?
> >
>
> Sorry, I currently don't have the time to properly review and/or test
> this. Though, in general the changes look good and I can at least provide:
>
> Acked-by: Frieder Schrempf <frieder.schrempf@kontron.de>
>
> I think it would help to split this up in smaller chunks, so people can
> review it more easily...

Splitting these changes is hard as it needs to be done atomtically to do
not break boards or do not break compilation.

I think it is better to have one bigger change than lot of smaller which
cause compile or runtime errors until all small changes are applied.