Re: [U-Boot] [0/6] Patch serie UBI min I/O size fixes

Hi,
Brunck, Holger wrote:
This patch serie fixes a problem in the UBI layer. The min I/O size has currently a fixed value of 1 for NOR flashes. But for NOR flashes the min I/O size has to be equal to the size of the writebuffer of the flash. Therefore the mtd layer was enhanced with the writebuffer which was later on used in the ubi layer to set the min I/O size.
This patches fixes problems with flash types with a writebuffersize > 128 Byte and is mainly taken from the similar linux patches. See MTD mailing list posts: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2010-December/033460.html
Without the u-boot patches attaching to a ubi device with a min I/O buffer larger than 128 would fail.
with the same changes in the linux kernel we see incompatibilities for the UBIFS. Due to this fact the patches should be restrained until this problem is solved.
See: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2011-January/033794.html
Best regards Holger Brunck

Hi Holger,
Hi,
Brunck, Holger wrote:
This patch serie fixes a problem in the UBI layer. The min I/O size has currently a fixed value of 1 for NOR flashes. But for NOR flashes the min I/O size has to be equal to the size of the writebuffer of the flash. Therefore the mtd layer was enhanced with the writebuffer which was later on used in the ubi layer to set the min I/O size.
This patches fixes problems with flash types with a writebuffersize > 128 Byte and is mainly taken from the similar linux patches. See MTD mailing list posts: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2010-December/033460.html
Without the u-boot patches attaching to a ubi device with a min I/O buffer larger than 128 would fail.
with the same changes in the linux kernel we see incompatibilities for the UBIFS. Due to this fact the patches should be restrained until this problem is solved.
See: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2011-January/033794.html
Ah, I see. Thanks for the info.
In defense of my overlapping mail, I can only state that the reference header in this mail of yours does not point to the earlier thread (check [1]) and thus I saw it only much later:
References: 4D41331C.7000302@keymile.com In-Reply-To: 4D41331C.7000302@keymile.com
But anyway, sorry for the noise.
Cheers Detlev
[1] http://mid.gmane.org/4D41331C.7000302@keymile.com
participants (2)
-
Detlev Zundel
-
Holger Brunck