Hi Maxime,
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:20 AM, Maxime Ripard < maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:
Hi Steve,
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 12:46:02PM -0800, Steve Rae wrote:
remove logging of the 'skipped' blocks
Signed-off-by: Steve Rae srae@broadcom.com
common/image-sparse.c | 6 ++---- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/image-sparse.c b/common/image-sparse.c index f02aee4..594bf4e 100644 --- a/common/image-sparse.c +++ b/common/image-sparse.c @@ -275,7 +275,6 @@ int store_sparse_image(sparse_storage_t *storage,
void *storage_priv,
sparse_buffer_t *buffer; uint32_t start; uint32_t total_blocks = 0;
uint32_t skipped = 0; int i; debug("=== Storage ===\n");@@ -334,7 +333,6 @@ int store_sparse_image(sparse_storage_t *storage,
void *storage_priv,
storage,sparse_header);
total_blocks += blkcnt;
This change (in the first patch), updates the "total_blocks" value, so that the "next" chunk has the proper "starting block" address (see these line 363...) 362 ret = storage->write(storage, storage_priv, 363 start + total_blocks, 364 buffer_blk_cnt, 365 buffer->data); Without this change, all the blocks written to the partition after the CHUNK_TYPE_DONT_CARE blocks are corrupted (they are not in the correct location). So, even though we are not actually writing any blocks to this space, the space must be maintained!
(Recently, I am now understanding that with NAND, there may be more complications; probably cannot just increment the "total_blocks" -- I suspect that it is required to actually determine if there are bad blocks in this space, and update the "total_blocks" value accordingly....)
skipped += blkcnt;continue; }@@ -375,8 +373,8 @@ int store_sparse_image(sparse_storage_t *storage,
void *storage_priv,
sparse_put_data_buffer(buffer); }
debug("Wrote %d blocks, skipped %d, expected to write %d blocks\n",total_blocks, skipped,
debug("Wrote %d blocks, expected to write %d blocks\n",total_blocks,What's the rationale between those two patches?
see inline comment above
Do we really want to treat the DONT_CARE chunks as if they were written?
I suspect that we do, and "sparse_header->total_blks" actually includes them in the count too... This "total_blocks" count is actually the number of blocks "processed" (which may or may not include actually writing to the partition). IMO - I think counting the "skipped blocks is unnecessary.
Thanks, Steve
Maxime
-- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com