On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 04:38:34PM +0100, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
Hello Tom,
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 10:25:30AM -0500, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 02:21:23PM +0100, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
I noticed an issue with env erase command when environment is stored in a emmc device, in case start/end are not aligned to the emmc erase groups size additional data is erased with just a warning.
...
I do not think that this is the correct behavior, I think that in case the env is not aligned to the erase block size the erase should either fail or fall back to just writing 0xff. Not sure if just changing `mmc_berase()` is going to affect any other use case in which is valid to have a non-aligned start/size and just erase around it after a warning.
Largely intentional behavior. Perhaps the help text at least should be updated to note that environment size for MMC needs to be a multiple of erase block size? And further that when using redundant environment it's strongly encouraged to make sure each environment is on its own erase block.
I'm not really convinced, but let's move forward from this point.
Alright. I'll also agree that it was designed when erase blocks were probably smaller and that yes, it's a lot more wasteful these days.
Are you aware of any other issues in case the emmc environment is not a multiple/aligned to the erase size? I believe that the rest of the code just read/write to it, so once it is aligned to the read/write block size (512 bytes, usually) there should be no problem.
I believe you're correct.