Dear Kyungmin Park,
In message 9c9fda240808102218y6461fb6el192dcff7e47c2536@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
Actually the Samsung implemented the UBI support on U-boot already and has used it internally. The big difference is the code base. It's
The big problem is always that such ports are done completely internally, and nothing is given back to the community. This causes a lot of duplicated (and thus avoidavle) efforts. Samsung is one of the companies hich have a notoriously bad record on this :-(
based on kernel UBI code. Yes it's not fit well to u-boot ecosystem so it created the ubi wrapper for u-boot.
It would have been nice if such issued whould have been discussed brfore implementing the stuff behind closed doors.
I saw your source codes and ubi commands. I think it supports minimal features of UBI, no volume create, remove, read/write and so on like these.
u-boot $ help ubi ubi info [l[ayout]] - Display volume and ubi layout information ubi create[vol] volume [size] [type] - create volume name with size ubi write[vol] address volume size - Write volume from address with size ubi read[vol] address volume [size] - Read volume to address with size ubi remove[vol] volume - Remove volume [Legends] volume: character name size: KiB, MiB, GiB, and bytes type: s[tatic] or d[ynamic] (default=dynamic)
I want to know what's the better way if there are two code bases.
The first thing that should be done is publishing the Samsung code without further delay. Even if it is against an old code base.
P.S., we will post the patches ASAP
Please do this *now*.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk