From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andre Puschmann <andre.puschmann@stud.tu-ilmenau.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:50:47 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Dataflash and JFFS2
In-Reply-To: <20060627101346.471D3353C8B@atlas.denx.de>
References: <e7quuu$ugk$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<20060627101346.471D3353C8B@atlas.denx.de>
Message-ID: <e7r62t$m6h$1@sea.gmane.org>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message <e7quuu$ugk$1@sea.gmane.org> you wrote:
>>>> partition starts at 0x29040 (with 0xc0000000 as base) size is 0x3f6e10
>>>> which is a multiple of 528, right?
>>> I don't think so.
>> sorry, i already corrected this typo :-) size is 0x3f6c00
> 
> This is NOT the partition size.
> 
>> but where should offset start from? at 0x00000000 or 0xc0000000?
> 
> I'm afraid I don't understand. Offsets measure the  distance  between
> "here"  and  a "base" or "start" address. So offset 0 is identical to
> the start address.

that is why i am asking from which "base" address the resulting address
is being calculated. sorry for incomprehensible formulation.

> 
>> this is my config:
>> #undef CONFIG_JFFS2_CMDLINE
>> #define CONFIG_JFFS2_DEV		"nor0"
> 
> This is not NOR flash. DOn't use misleading names.

so "dataflash0" would be ok ..

> 
>> #define CONFIG_JFFS2_PART_SIZE		0x3f6c00
> 
> This is wrong. I would expect to see some "round" number here, i.  e.
> 0x380000 or so.

ok, i thought jffs2-partition sizes might be multiple of pagesize and
erase-size, don't they?

> 
> What are your partition sizes in Linux? You certainly don't have such
> odd size there either, right?

we used such "odd" sizes as well ..
i thought it doesn't matter how those "numbers" look like as long as
they are suitable for jffs2-partition restrictions.


> 
>> #define CONFIG_JFFS2_PART_OFFSET	(CFG_DATAFLASH_LOGIC_ADDR_CS0 + 0x29040)
>>
>> where 0x29040 is the beginning of the partition starting from 0xc0000000
> 
> This is wrong, too.

this confuses me, sorry!
can you please give me some more details about what i am doing wrong?

> 
>> so calling it nor0 doesn't effect anything?
> 
> Yes, it does. It causes confusion to the user and  is  thus  an  evil
> thing that should be fixed.

already fixed this :-)
but just the fact that dataflash is not "normal" nor-flash doesn't
effect the usability of dataflash for the discussed problem?
i mean, in case i wouldn't make such silly mistakes :-) it should work
with this configuration?

> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Wolfgang Denk
> 

thank for help ..

regards

andre