Hello Sam,
sorry for the late reply...
On 07.09.23 23:46, Sam Edwards wrote:
Hi Heiko and Simon,
Thought I'd follow-up to keep this discussion going. The main thing I would like to decide first (as it lets me start relying on it in boot scripts) would be the UBI access syntax:
=> ls ubi 0:rootfs /boot => ls ubi 0:2 /boot
Looks perfect for me.
Do those look good? Should I be trying to mimic the accepted syntax of fs/ubifs/super.c:open_ubi()? Perhaps "ubi 0!rootfs" and/or "ubi 0_2"? Not using ':' leaves open the possibility for logical volumes (LVM2/UBI) to contain partitions - not that I expect anyone will want that. :)
Good question... You never know... so from my side, yes it would be good to allow both options ... so "ubi 0:2" and "ubi 0_2", something like if ":" is in use "ubi 0:2" else try "ubi 0_2"
Please rebase your patchset when 2023.10 is out, thanks!
bye, Heiko