Hi Rob,
On Jun 25, 2014, at 4:59 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Steve Rae srae@broadcom.com wrote:
Rob & Sebastian
I would appreciate your comments on this issue; I suspect that you had some ideas regarding the implementation of the fastboot "flash" and "erase" commands....
I agree with Lukasz's and Marek's comments unless there are good reasons not to use it which can't be fixed. Curiously, USB mass storage does not use the DFU backend, but I don't know why. Perhaps there are incompatibilities or converting it is on the todo list. Are your performance concerns measurable or it's just the fact you are adding another layer?
I'd really like to see the eMMC backend be a generic block device backend. There's no good reason for it to be eMMC/SD specific.
I completely agree. Started looking into this but there's lots of inertia :( We have device specific backends where a generic one should suffice...
Don't you also need the ability to partition a disk with fastboot?
Rob
Regards
-- Pantelis
Thanks in advance, Steve
On 14-06-23 05:58 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
Hi Steve,
On 14-06-19 11:32 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Friday, June 20, 2014 at 08:18:42 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
Hi Steve,
> This series implements the "fastboot flash" command for eMMC > devices. It supports both raw and sparse images. > > NOTES: > - the support for the "fastboot flash" command is enabled with > CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH > - the support for eMMC is enabled with > CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_MMC_DEV > - (future) the support for NAND would be enabled with > CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_NAND(???) > - thus the proposal is to place the code in common/fb_mmc.c and > (future) common/fb_nand.c(???), however, this may not be the > appropriate location....
Would you consider another approach for providing flashing backend for fastboot?
I'd like to propose reusing of the dfu flashing code for this purpose. Such approach has been used successfully with USB "thor" downloading function.
Since the "fastboot" is using gadget infrastructure (thanks to the effort of Rob Herring) I think that it would be feasible to reuse the same approach as "thor" does. In this way the low level code would be kept in one place and we could refine and test it more thoroughly.
I'm all for this approach as well if possible.
Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
I have briefly investigated this suggestion.... And have 'hacked' some code as follows:
--- common/fb_mmc.c_000 2014-06-20 14:13:43.271158073 -0700 +++ common/fb_mmc.c_001 2014-06-20 14:17:48.688072764 -0700 while (remaining_chunks) { switch (le16_to_cpu(c_header->chunk_type)) { case CHUNK_TYPE_RAW: +#if 0 blkcnt = (le32_to_cpu(c_header->chunk_sz)
blk_sz) / info.blksz; buffer = (void *)c_header + le16_to_cpu(s_header->chunk_hdr_sz);
blks =mmc_dev->block_write(mmc_dev->dev, blk, blkcnt, buffer); if (blks != blkcnt) { printf("Write failed %lu\n", blks); strcpy(response, "FAILmmc write failure"); return; }
bytes_written += blkcnt *info.blksz; +#else
buffer =(void *)c_header +le16_to_cpu(s_header->chunk_hdr_sz); +
len =le32_to_cpu(c_header->chunk_sz) * blk_sz;
ret_dfu = dfu_write_medium_mmc(dfu,offset,
buffer, &len);
if (ret_dfu) {printf("Write failed %lu\n",len);
strcpy(response,"FAILmmc writefailure");
return;}bytes_written += len;+#endif break;
case CHUNK_TYPE_FILL: case CHUNK_TYPE_DONT_CARE: case CHUNK_TYPE_CRC32: /* do nothing */ break; default: /* error */ printf("Unknown chunk type\n"); strcpy(response, "FAILunknown chunk type insparse image"); return; }
+#if 0 blk += (le32_to_cpu(c_header->chunk_sz) * blk_sz) / info.blksz; +#else
offset += le32_to_cpu(c_header->chunk_sz) *blk_sz; +#endif c_header = (chunk_header_t *)((void *)c_header + le32_to_cpu(c_header->total_sz)); remaining_chunks--; }
--- common/fb_mmc.c_000 2014-06-20 14:13:43.271158073 -0700 +++ common/fb_mmc.c_001 2014-06-20 14:17:48.688072764 -0700 /* raw image */
+#if 0 /* determine number of blocks to write */ blkcnt = ((download_bytes + (info.blksz - 1)) & ~(info.blksz - 1)); blkcnt = blkcnt / info.blksz;
if (blkcnt > info.size) { printf("%s: too large for partition:'%s'\n", __func__, cmd); strcpy(response, "FAILtoo large for partition"); return; }
printf("Flashing Raw Image\n"); blks = mmc_dev->block_write(mmc_dev->dev,info.start, blkcnt, download_buffer); if (blks != blkcnt) { printf("%s: failed writing to mmc device %d\n", __func__, mmc_dev->dev); strcpy(response, "FAILfailed writing to mmc device"); return; }
printf("........ wrote %lu bytes to '%s'\n", blkcnt * info.blksz, cmd);+#else
printf("Flashing Raw Image\n");ret_dfu = dfu_write_medium_mmc(dfu, offset,download_buffer, &len);
if (ret_dfu) {printf("%s: failed writing to mmc device%d\n",
__func__, mmc_dev->dev);strcpy(response, "FAILfailed writing to mmcdevice");
return;}printf("........ wrote %lu bytes to '%s'\n", len,cmd); +#endif }
NOTE:
- I know that I cannot call "dfu_write_medium_mmc()" directly -- but
I just wanted to test this functionality
Indeed, it looks like an early proof-of-concept code :-).
My initial reaction is that using the DFU backend to effectively call the mmc block_write() function seems to cause an unnecessary amount of overhead;
It also allows to access/write data to other media - like NAND memory.
and the only thing that it really provides is a proven method of calculating the "number of blocks to write"...
I would be more interested in this backend if it would provide:
- handling of the "sparse image format" -- would a CONFIG option to include this in the DFU_OP_WRITE
You are welcome to prepare patch which adds such functionality. Moreover, in the u-boot-dfu repository (master branch) you can find initial version of the regression tests for DFU. Extending the current one, or adding your own would be awesome :-)
case of the "mmc_block_op()" be acceptable?
- a method which uses "get_partition_info_efi_by_name()" -- no ideas yet...
I'm looking forward for RFC.
If the consensus is to use this DFU backend, then I will continue is this direction.
That would be great.
Please advise, Thanks, Steve