[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer. - Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored. - Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by: - read two sectors after loop on each single is done - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov lebon@lebon.org.ua Cc: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Cc: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de --- fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644 --- a/fs/fat/fat.c +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, int ret = -1; int firsttime; __u32 root_cluster = 0; + __u32 read_blk; int rootdir_size = 0; - int j; + int j, k; + int do_read; + __u8 *dir_ptr;
if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) { debug("Error: reading boot sector\n"); @@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, }
j = 0; + k = 0; while (1) { int i;
- if (j == 0) { + if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) { + dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block; + k = 1; + } else { + dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block + mydata->sect_size); + memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr, mydata->sect_size); + } + + do_read = 1; + + if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j) + do_read = 0; + + if (do_read) { debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n", cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
- if (disk_read(cursect, - (mydata->fatsize == 32) ? - (mydata->clust_size) : - PREFETCH_BLOCKS, - do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) { + read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ? + mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS; + if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) { debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n"); goto exit; }
- dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block; + dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr; }
for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) { @@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
get_vfatname(mydata, root_cluster, - do_fat_read_at_block, + dir_ptr, dentptr, l_name);
if (dols == LS_ROOT) {
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
This is very interesting! Is this the same failure that I saw on this thread?
http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revisi...
(search for fatload)
"I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
Regards, Simon
[snip]
Hello,
On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
This is very interesting! Is this the same failure that I saw on this thread?
http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revisi...
(search for fatload)
"I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
Regards, Simon
[snip]
Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer bug. Does this patch fixed your issue?
I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool. It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using the UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using U-Boot fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for the "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox. My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change fat directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read right.
I will send the scripts for such simple test.
Best regards,
--------------------------------------------------------- mktest_files: script for generating random size long name files --------------------------------------------------------- Usage: ./1_mktest_files.sh count
count - number of files to be generated
The output directory is: "./test_files"
--------------------------------------------------------- copy_files: copy the test_files/* into test partition mount point --------------------------------------------------------- Usage: ./2_copy_files.sh mount_point
----------------------------------------------------------- fat_test.sh: test fat read by write commands to the device console ---------------------------------------------------------- This script send commands to U-Boot console. First specify few script variables, e.g: - TTY="/dev/ttyS0" - MMCDEV=0 - PARTITION=2 - LOAD_ADDR="0x40000000"
usage: 1. Target: run: ums 0 mmc 0 2. Run script 1 and 2 to make and copy the test files onto the test partition by UMS 3. This script: - set test device $PARTITION and other variables in the script, which is required for sending proper commands - set $TTY in the script run: ./3_fat_test.sh 4. Compare the crc results on the target and device consoles (sorry for the mess on the console)
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com --- 1_mktest_files.sh | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2_copy_files.sh | 20 ++++++++++++++ 3_fat_test.sh | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 140 insertions(+) create mode 100755 1_mktest_files.sh create mode 100755 2_copy_files.sh create mode 100755 3_fat_test.sh
diff --git a/1_mktest_files.sh b/1_mktest_files.sh new file mode 100755 index 0000000..e9f4e26 --- /dev/null +++ b/1_mktest_files.sh @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ +#!/bin/bash +# +# Copyright (C) 2014 Samsung Electronics +# Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com +# +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ +# + +F_CNT=${1} +OUT_DIR="./test_files" +# File max: 100k +f_max_size=255 + +# Minimal len of long name -> len+"xxxk.bin" +LONG_NAME_LEN=20 + +if [ ${#1} -eq 0 ] + then + echo "Bad arg!" + echo "usage:" + echo "./mktest_files.sh count" + exit +else + if [ -d $OUT_DIR ] + then + echo "Directory: "$OUT_DIR" exists - cleanup" + rm $OUT_DIR/* + else + echo "Test files directory: "$OUT_DIR"" + mkdir $OUT_DIR + fi + echo "Generating $1 files:" +fi + +###### +# 1. # Generate random size for the files +###### + +i=0 +for val in `rand -M $f_max_size -N $F_CNT -u` + do + f_size_list[$i]=$val +# echo "Size[$i]: ${f_size_list[$i]}" + i=$(($i+1)) +done + +###### +# 2. # Prepare the long name +###### +CHAR="_" + +for I in `seq 1 1 $LONG_NAME_LEN`; do + LONG_NAME="$LONG_NAME""$CHAR" +done + +###### +# 3. # Generate files with random data +###### +i=0 +# Set fat16 file extension (dot + 3 characters) +EXT=".bin" +for len_k in ${f_size_list[@]} + do + + prefix="$len_k""k" + + prefix_len=${#prefix} + long_name_len=${#LONG_NAME} + ext_len=${#EXT} + name=`echo "$prefix""$LONG_NAME" | head -c $long_name_len` + name=$name$EXT +# echo Name: $name len: ${#name} + + echo "$i Prefix: $prefix name len: ${#name} chars:" + full_name="$OUT_DIR/$name" + + echo "$full_name" + + dd if=/dev/urandom of=${full_name} bs=1k count=$len_k 2>/dev/null + + i=$(($i+1)) +done diff --git a/2_copy_files.sh b/2_copy_files.sh new file mode 100755 index 0000000..6bfefc6 --- /dev/null +++ b/2_copy_files.sh @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +#!/bin/bash +# +# Copyright (C) 2014 Samsung Electronics +# Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com +# +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ +# + +#MOUNT_POINT - for the fat16 partition, +# e.g. target partition using ums command + +MOUNT_POINT=$1 +DIR="test_files" + +for I in `ls -1 -S $DIR/`; do + echo Copying "$DIR/$I" to $DEV + cp "$DIR/$I" $MOUNT_POINT +done + +sync \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/3_fat_test.sh b/3_fat_test.sh new file mode 100755 index 0000000..07222a0 --- /dev/null +++ b/3_fat_test.sh @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +#!/bin/sh +# +# Copyright (C) 2014 Samsung Electronics +# Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com +# +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ +# + +TTY="/dev/ttyS0" +MMCDEV=0 +PARTITION=2 +LOAD_ADDR="0x40000000" + +DIR="test_files" + +SPACE="_____________________________ " +CMD_1_2="setenv t "fatload mmc $MMCDEV:$PARTITION $LOAD_ADDR '$F';" +CMD_2_2="echo $SPACE File: '$F'; crc $LOAD_ADDR '$S'"" +CMD="$CMD_1_2""$CMD_2_2" + +# Set command for loading DIR +echo "$CMD" > $TTY + +for I in `ls -1 -S $DIR`; + do + FILE="$DIR"/"$I" + # Hex size: + SIZE=`ls -l $FILE | awk '{printf("%#x\n", $5)}'` + CRC=`crc32 $FILE` + + echo + echo "File: $I" + echo " ==> $CRC" + + CMD="setenv F '$I'; setenv S $SIZE; run t;" + echo "echo" > $TTY + echo $CMD > $TTY +done
Hello,
On 12/12/2014 04:52 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
mktest_files: script for generating random size long name files
Usage: ./1_mktest_files.sh count
count - number of files to be generated
The output directory is: "./test_files"
copy_files: copy the test_files/* into test partition mount point
Usage: ./2_copy_files.sh mount_point
fat_test.sh: test fat read by write commands to the device console
This script send commands to U-Boot console. First specify few script variables, e.g:
- TTY="/dev/ttyS0"
- MMCDEV=0
- PARTITION=2
- LOAD_ADDR="0x40000000"
usage:
- Target: run: ums 0 mmc 0
- Run script 1 and 2 to make and copy the test files onto the test partition by UMS
- This script:
run: ./3_fat_test.sh
- set test device $PARTITION and other variables in the script, which is required for sending proper commands
- set $TTY in the script
- Compare the crc results on the target and device consoles (sorry for the mess on the console)
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com
1_mktest_files.sh | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2_copy_files.sh | 20 ++++++++++++++ 3_fat_test.sh | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 140 insertions(+) create mode 100755 1_mktest_files.sh create mode 100755 2_copy_files.sh create mode 100755 3_fat_test.sh
This is just for some quick test. I will add something more pretty to the sandbox.
Best regards,
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 12 December 2014 at 08:54, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/12/2014 04:52 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
mktest_files: script for generating random size long name files
Usage: ./1_mktest_files.sh count
count - number of files to be generated
The output directory is: "./test_files"
copy_files: copy the test_files/* into test partition mount point
Usage: ./2_copy_files.sh mount_point
fat_test.sh: test fat read by write commands to the device console
This script send commands to U-Boot console. First specify few script variables, e.g:
- TTY="/dev/ttyS0"
- MMCDEV=0
- PARTITION=2
- LOAD_ADDR="0x40000000"
usage:
- Target: run: ums 0 mmc 0
- Run script 1 and 2 to make and copy the test files onto the test partition by UMS
- This script:
run: ./3_fat_test.sh
- set test device $PARTITION and other variables in the script, which is required for sending proper commands
- set $TTY in the script
- Compare the crc results on the target and device consoles (sorry for the mess on the console)
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com
1_mktest_files.sh | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2_copy_files.sh | 20 ++++++++++++++ 3_fat_test.sh | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 140 insertions(+) create mode 100755 1_mktest_files.sh create mode 100755 2_copy_files.sh create mode 100755 3_fat_test.sh
This is just for some quick test. I will add something more pretty to the sandbox.
Perhaps this should be written in Python? We now have quite a few tests and it's getting to the point where we might want to have a way to run them all, check results, etc. That would be easier if we could import them through some standard interface. For now, perhaps we should avoid shell scripts except for really trivial things.
You can bring in the patman libraries (we could break these out into another dir but it doesn't seem important):
import os import sys
# Bring in the patman libraries our_path = os.path.dirname(os.path.realpath(__file__)) sys.path.append(os.path.join(our_path, 'tools/patman'))
import command
The, for example: print command.Output('ls', '-l')
Regards, Simon
Hello Simon,
On 12/16/2014 09:41 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 12 December 2014 at 08:54, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/12/2014 04:52 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
mktest_files: script for generating random size long name files
Usage: ./1_mktest_files.sh count
count - number of files to be generated
The output directory is: "./test_files"
copy_files: copy the test_files/* into test partition mount point
Usage: ./2_copy_files.sh mount_point
fat_test.sh: test fat read by write commands to the device console
This script send commands to U-Boot console. First specify few script variables, e.g:
- TTY="/dev/ttyS0"
- MMCDEV=0
- PARTITION=2
- LOAD_ADDR="0x40000000"
usage:
- Target: run: ums 0 mmc 0
- Run script 1 and 2 to make and copy the test files onto the test partition by UMS
- This script:
run: ./3_fat_test.sh
- set test device $PARTITION and other variables in the script, which is required for sending proper commands
- set $TTY in the script
- Compare the crc results on the target and device consoles (sorry for the mess on the console)
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com
1_mktest_files.sh | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2_copy_files.sh | 20 ++++++++++++++ 3_fat_test.sh | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 140 insertions(+) create mode 100755 1_mktest_files.sh create mode 100755 2_copy_files.sh create mode 100755 3_fat_test.sh
This is just for some quick test. I will add something more pretty to the sandbox.
Perhaps this should be written in Python? We now have quite a few tests and it's getting to the point where we might want to have a way to run them all, check results, etc. That would be easier if we could import them through some standard interface. For now, perhaps we should avoid shell scripts except for really trivial things.
You can bring in the patman libraries (we could break these out into another dir but it doesn't seem important):
import os import sys
# Bring in the patman libraries our_path = os.path.dirname(os.path.realpath(__file__)) sys.path.append(os.path.join(our_path, 'tools/patman'))
import command
The, for example: print command.Output('ls', '-l')
Regards, Simon
The patch fixes the issue with the "hidden" files, so for looking the issue on some other cases I made some simple script. I understand that this is not good for a U-Boot tests, and I agree that better is to write something automated in the Python for the sandbox. I think that the fix should be merged. I can write the test for the sandbox in a free time, but it will take a moment, because now I would like to focus on the pmic framework. The pmic was on hold for too long.
Best regards,
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
This is very interesting! Is this the same failure that I saw on this thread?
http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revisi...
(search for fatload)
"I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
Regards, Simon
[snip]
Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer bug. Does this patch fixed your issue?
I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool. It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using the UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using U-Boot fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for the "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox. My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change fat directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read right.
I will send the scripts for such simple test.
I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if I can make time to test it.
If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
Regards, Simon
Hello,
On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
This is very interesting! Is this the same failure that I saw on this thread?
http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revisi...
(search for fatload)
"I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
Regards, Simon
[snip]
Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer bug. Does this patch fixed your issue?
I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool. It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using the UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using U-Boot fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for the "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox. My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change fat directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read right.
I will send the scripts for such simple test.
I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if I can make time to test it.
If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
Regards, Simon
It sounds good. I can do that, as I wrote in my previous message, now I'm focused on the pmic, and this will be a side task for a break time. I will look into the present tests and I think, that I will find an example there.
Best regards,
Hello,
On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
This is very interesting! Is this the same failure that I saw on this thread?
http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revisi...
(search for fatload)
"I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
Regards, Simon
[snip]
Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer bug. Does this patch fixed your issue?
I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool. It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using the UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using U-Boot fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for the "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox. My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change fat directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read right.
I will send the scripts for such simple test.
I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if I can make time to test it.
If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
Regards, Simon
Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it was just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.
Best regards,
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 17 December 2014 at 02:03, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
This is very interesting! Is this the same failure that I saw on this thread?
http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revisi...
(search for fatload)
"I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
Regards, Simon
[snip]
Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer bug. Does this patch fixed your issue?
I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool. It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using the UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using U-Boot fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for the "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox. My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change fat directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read right.
I will send the scripts for such simple test.
I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if I can make time to test it.
If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
Regards, Simon
Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it was just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.
Somewhat bewildering, but it does not in fact fix my problem.
Here is a compressed version of the fat filesystem if you want to take a look:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7WYZbZ9zd-3NGRMNkFQQTdtV2M/view?usp=sharin...
Regards, Simon
Hello Simon,
On 12/18/2014 04:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 17 December 2014 at 02:03, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
This is very interesting! Is this the same failure that I saw on this thread?
http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revisi...
(search for fatload)
"I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
Regards, Simon
[snip]
Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer bug. Does this patch fixed your issue?
I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool. It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using the UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using U-Boot fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for the "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox. My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change fat directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read right.
I will send the scripts for such simple test.
I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if I can make time to test it.
If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
Regards, Simon
Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it was just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.
Somewhat bewildering, but it does not in fact fix my problem.
Here is a compressed version of the fat filesystem if you want to take a look:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7WYZbZ9zd-3NGRMNkFQQTdtV2M/view?usp=sharin...
Regards, Simon
I had put this image on my Trats2 device on partition mmc 0:6 using ums and dd linux command. Next I put latest mainline u-boot, commit: e3bf81b1e841ecabe7c8b3d48621256db8b8623e : "Merge branch 'master' of git://git.denx.de/u-boot-mpc85xx"
So this is the version with the fat bug. But I can see and load the file: "bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb".
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db Trats2 #
The only missing file is "boot.scr", it's ignored by "ls" command but can be loaded...
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 boot.scr reading boot.scr 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100 CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
I suppose that the partition image which you shared for me is little different, than this mentioned in the topic "[PATCH U-Boot] ARM: rpi_b: detect board revision"
Probably the sequence of writing files to this partition was different, and the different file is ignored.
After putting the debug macro on the top of fs/fat/fat.c:
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 VFAT Support enabled FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32 Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000 Data begins at: 80 Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16 FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 RootDentname == NULL - 0
18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
And next test on commit 9b416a9f4ca7cf5ac4d5f7143d67edde7f7d7326 with my fat patch.
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ 256 boot.scr extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 boot.scr reading boot.scr 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100 CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
So the only difference on this image is, that with my patch, the file "boot.scr" ignored by ls command is now visible - but in both cases it can be loaded into memory and the crc is correct.
After enabling the debug:
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 VFAT Support enabled FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32 Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000 Data begins at: 80 Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16 FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=81, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ 256 boot.scr END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=83, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 RootDentname == NULL - 0
19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
So as I checked the file: 256 boot.scr is next behind to the: 1331 config.txt~
And this can be checked with hex dump: hd -s 0xa400 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
Your fat image is good example of what my patch fixes.
As you can see on the simple debug info, without the fix,the sector 80 and 81 is stored in the buffer (there are always 2 sectors in the buffer). If you see the hex dump of the second sector:
hd -s 0xa200 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
You will see that at the end of this sector, there is a long name entry for file "boot.scr".
In the next loop (without the fix): END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ the sector 82 and 83 is loaded in to the buffer, so the long name entry of "boot.scr" file from the end of sector 81 is now in the heaven, and the file will be ignored by the ls command.
The sector 82 can be checked by: hd -s 0xa400 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
It begins with the short name entry of file "boot.scr".
After applying my fix, there are always three sectors in the buffer, because the last one is moved into the buffer begin and two next are loaded into the buffer next to the last one. And the buffer pointer is always on the second buffered sector beside first loop.
So I think this patch fixes the issue well.
Could you describe your issue more precisely?
Best regards,
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 18 December 2014 at 03:26, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello Simon,
On 12/18/2014 04:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 17 December 2014 at 02:03, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote: > > > > > The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name > directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector. > > This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the > two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors. > > If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, > the we have two cases: > > Case 1: > Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data > for long file name is in the buffer. > - Read OK! > > Case 2: > The current directory entry is placed at the end of the > second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed > in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next > sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored. > - Read fail! > > This commit fixes this issue by: > - read two sectors after loop on each single is done > - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer > before the read of two next > > The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, > which works good as previous.
This is very interesting! Is this the same failure that I saw on this thread?
http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revisi...
(search for fatload)
"I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
Regards, Simon
[snip]
Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer bug. Does this patch fixed your issue?
I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool. It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using the UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using U-Boot fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for the "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox. My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change fat directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read right.
I will send the scripts for such simple test.
I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if I can make time to test it.
If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
Regards, Simon
Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it was just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.
Somewhat bewildering, but it does not in fact fix my problem.
Here is a compressed version of the fat filesystem if you want to take a look:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7WYZbZ9zd-3NGRMNkFQQTdtV2M/view?usp=sharin...
Regards, Simon
I had put this image on my Trats2 device on partition mmc 0:6 using ums and dd linux command. Next I put latest mainline u-boot, commit: e3bf81b1e841ecabe7c8b3d48621256db8b8623e : "Merge branch 'master' of git://git.denx.de/u-boot-mpc85xx"
So this is the version with the fat bug. But I can see and load the file: "bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb".
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db Trats2 #
The only missing file is "boot.scr", it's ignored by "ls" command but can be loaded...
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 boot.scr reading boot.scr 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100 CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
I suppose that the partition image which you shared for me is little different, than this mentioned in the topic "[PATCH U-Boot] ARM: rpi_b: detect board revision"
Probably the sequence of writing files to this partition was different, and the different file is ignored.
After putting the debug macro on the top of fs/fat/fat.c:
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 VFAT Support enabled FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32 Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000 Data begins at: 80 Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16 FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 RootDentname == NULL - 0
18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
And next test on commit 9b416a9f4ca7cf5ac4d5f7143d67edde7f7d7326 with my fat patch.
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ 256 boot.scr extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 boot.scr reading boot.scr 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100 CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
So the only difference on this image is, that with my patch, the file "boot.scr" ignored by ls command is now visible - but in both cases it can be loaded into memory and the crc is correct.
After enabling the debug:
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 VFAT Support enabled FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32 Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000 Data begins at: 80 Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16 FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=81, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ 256 boot.scr END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=83, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 RootDentname == NULL - 0
19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
So as I checked the file: 256 boot.scr is next behind to the: 1331 config.txt~
And this can be checked with hex dump: hd -s 0xa400 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
Your fat image is good example of what my patch fixes.
As you can see on the simple debug info, without the fix,the sector 80 and 81 is stored in the buffer (there are always 2 sectors in the buffer). If you see the hex dump of the second sector:
hd -s 0xa200 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
You will see that at the end of this sector, there is a long name entry for file "boot.scr".
In the next loop (without the fix): END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ the sector 82 and 83 is loaded in to the buffer, so the long name entry of "boot.scr" file from the end of sector 81 is now in the heaven, and the file will be ignored by the ls command.
The sector 82 can be checked by: hd -s 0xa400 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
It begins with the short name entry of file "boot.scr".
After applying my fix, there are always three sectors in the buffer, because the last one is moved into the buffer begin and two next are loaded into the buffer next to the last one. And the buffer pointer is always on the second buffered sector beside first loop.
So I think this patch fixes the issue well.
Could you describe your issue more precisely?
I think you left out the path. The file I tried to load was:
/syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
It works OK without the path on the front.
Regards, Simon
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 02:14 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 18 December 2014 at 03:26, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello Simon,
On 12/18/2014 04:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 17 December 2014 at 02:03, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Przemyslaw, > > On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak > p.marczak@samsung.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name >> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector. >> >> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the >> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors. >> >> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, >> the we have two cases: >> >> Case 1: >> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data >> for long file name is in the buffer. >> - Read OK! >> >> Case 2: >> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the >> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed >> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next >> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored. >> - Read fail! >> >> This commit fixes this issue by: >> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done >> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer >> before the read of two next >> >> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, >> which works good as previous. > > > > > > This is very interesting! Is this the same failure that I saw on this > thread? > > > > > http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revisi... > > (search for fatload) > > "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the > device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb. > > Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try > from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the > file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what > year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? " > > > Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh? > > Regards, > Simon > > [snip] >
Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer bug. Does this patch fixed your issue?
I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool. It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using the UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using U-Boot fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for the "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox. My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change fat directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read right.
I will send the scripts for such simple test.
I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if I can make time to test it.
If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
Regards, Simon
Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it was just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.
Somewhat bewildering, but it does not in fact fix my problem.
Here is a compressed version of the fat filesystem if you want to take a look:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7WYZbZ9zd-3NGRMNkFQQTdtV2M/view?usp=sharin...
Regards, Simon
I had put this image on my Trats2 device on partition mmc 0:6 using ums and dd linux command. Next I put latest mainline u-boot, commit: e3bf81b1e841ecabe7c8b3d48621256db8b8623e : "Merge branch 'master' of git://git.denx.de/u-boot-mpc85xx"
So this is the version with the fat bug. But I can see and load the file: "bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb".
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db Trats2 #
The only missing file is "boot.scr", it's ignored by "ls" command but can be loaded...
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 boot.scr reading boot.scr 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100 CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
I suppose that the partition image which you shared for me is little different, than this mentioned in the topic "[PATCH U-Boot] ARM: rpi_b: detect board revision"
Probably the sequence of writing files to this partition was different, and the different file is ignored.
After putting the debug macro on the top of fs/fat/fat.c:
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 VFAT Support enabled FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32 Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000 Data begins at: 80 Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16 FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 RootDentname == NULL - 0
18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
And next test on commit 9b416a9f4ca7cf5ac4d5f7143d67edde7f7d7326 with my fat patch.
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ 256 boot.scr extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 boot.scr reading boot.scr 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100 CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
So the only difference on this image is, that with my patch, the file "boot.scr" ignored by ls command is now visible - but in both cases it can be loaded into memory and the crc is correct.
After enabling the debug:
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 VFAT Support enabled FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32 Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000 Data begins at: 80 Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16 FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=81, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ 256 boot.scr END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=83, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 RootDentname == NULL - 0
19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
So as I checked the file: 256 boot.scr is next behind to the: 1331 config.txt~
And this can be checked with hex dump: hd -s 0xa400 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
Your fat image is good example of what my patch fixes.
As you can see on the simple debug info, without the fix,the sector 80 and 81 is stored in the buffer (there are always 2 sectors in the buffer). If you see the hex dump of the second sector:
hd -s 0xa200 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
You will see that at the end of this sector, there is a long name entry for file "boot.scr".
In the next loop (without the fix): END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ the sector 82 and 83 is loaded in to the buffer, so the long name entry of "boot.scr" file from the end of sector 81 is now in the heaven, and the file will be ignored by the ls command.
The sector 82 can be checked by: hd -s 0xa400 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
It begins with the short name entry of file "boot.scr".
After applying my fix, there are always three sectors in the buffer, because the last one is moved into the buffer begin and two next are loaded into the buffer next to the last one. And the buffer pointer is always on the second buffered sector beside first loop.
So I think this patch fixes the issue well.
Could you describe your issue more precisely?
I think you left out the path. The file I tried to load was:
/syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
It works OK without the path on the front.
Regards, Simon
Yes I didn't use any path. But why are you using such path, if there is no such directory? There is only /extlinux directory on the fat image which you shared.
Best regards,
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 18 December 2014 at 06:31, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 02:14 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 18 December 2014 at 03:26, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello Simon,
On 12/18/2014 04:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 17 December 2014 at 02:03, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> >> >> >> Hi Przemyslaw, >> >> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak >> p.marczak@samsung.com >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name >>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector. >>> >>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the >>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors. >>> >>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, >>> the we have two cases: >>> >>> Case 1: >>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data >>> for long file name is in the buffer. >>> - Read OK! >>> >>> Case 2: >>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the >>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed >>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next >>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored. >>> - Read fail! >>> >>> This commit fixes this issue by: >>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done >>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer >>> before the read of two next >>> >>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, >>> which works good as previous. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This is very interesting! Is this the same failure that I saw on >> this >> thread? >> >> >> >> >> >> http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revisi... >> >> (search for fatload) >> >> "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the >> device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb. >> >> Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try >> from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find >> the >> file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what >> year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? " >> >> >> Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh? >> >> Regards, >> Simon >> >> [snip] >> > > Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer > bug. > Does this patch fixed your issue? > > I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool. > It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted > using > the > UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using > U-Boot > fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full > automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console. > > So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files > were > found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful > for > the > "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox. > My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: > echo > "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0. > > Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken. > > The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can > change > fat > directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read > right. > > I will send the scripts for such simple test.
I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if I can make time to test it.
If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
Regards, Simon
Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it was just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.
Somewhat bewildering, but it does not in fact fix my problem.
Here is a compressed version of the fat filesystem if you want to take a look:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7WYZbZ9zd-3NGRMNkFQQTdtV2M/view?usp=sharin...
Regards, Simon
I had put this image on my Trats2 device on partition mmc 0:6 using ums and dd linux command. Next I put latest mainline u-boot, commit: e3bf81b1e841ecabe7c8b3d48621256db8b8623e : "Merge branch 'master' of git://git.denx.de/u-boot-mpc85xx"
So this is the version with the fat bug. But I can see and load the file: "bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb".
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db Trats2 #
The only missing file is "boot.scr", it's ignored by "ls" command but can be loaded...
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 boot.scr reading boot.scr 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100 CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
I suppose that the partition image which you shared for me is little different, than this mentioned in the topic "[PATCH U-Boot] ARM: rpi_b: detect board revision"
Probably the sequence of writing files to this partition was different, and the different file is ignored.
After putting the debug macro on the top of fs/fat/fat.c:
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 VFAT Support enabled FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32 Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000 Data begins at: 80 Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16 FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 RootDentname == NULL - 0
18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
And next test on commit 9b416a9f4ca7cf5ac4d5f7143d67edde7f7d7326 with my fat patch.
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ 256 boot.scr extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 boot.scr reading boot.scr 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100 CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
So the only difference on this image is, that with my patch, the file "boot.scr" ignored by ls command is now visible - but in both cases it can be loaded into memory and the crc is correct.
After enabling the debug:
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 VFAT Support enabled FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32 Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000 Data begins at: 80 Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16 FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=81, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ 256 boot.scr END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=83, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 RootDentname == NULL - 0
19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
So as I checked the file: 256 boot.scr is next behind to the: 1331 config.txt~
And this can be checked with hex dump: hd -s 0xa400 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
Your fat image is good example of what my patch fixes.
As you can see on the simple debug info, without the fix,the sector 80 and 81 is stored in the buffer (there are always 2 sectors in the buffer). If you see the hex dump of the second sector:
hd -s 0xa200 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
You will see that at the end of this sector, there is a long name entry for file "boot.scr".
In the next loop (without the fix): END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ the sector 82 and 83 is loaded in to the buffer, so the long name entry of "boot.scr" file from the end of sector 81 is now in the heaven, and the file will be ignored by the ls command.
The sector 82 can be checked by: hd -s 0xa400 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
It begins with the short name entry of file "boot.scr".
After applying my fix, there are always three sectors in the buffer, because the last one is moved into the buffer begin and two next are loaded into the buffer next to the last one. And the buffer pointer is always on the second buffered sector beside first loop.
So I think this patch fixes the issue well.
Could you describe your issue more precisely?
I think you left out the path. The file I tried to load was:
/syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
It works OK without the path on the front.
Regards, Simon
Yes I didn't use any path. But why are you using such path, if there is no such directory? There is only /extlinux directory on the fat image which you shared.
This is a feature of the extlinux system, a general way of loading a kernel that U-Boot now supports. It feels like a U-Boot bug to me.
Regards, Simon
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 02:36 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 18 December 2014 at 06:31, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 02:14 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 18 December 2014 at 03:26, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello Simon,
On 12/18/2014 04:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 17 December 2014 at 02:03, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Przemyslaw, > > On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak > p.marczak@samsung.com > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> >> On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Przemyslaw, >>> >>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak >>> p.marczak@samsung.com >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name >>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector. >>>> >>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the >>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors. >>>> >>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, >>>> the we have two cases: >>>> >>>> Case 1: >>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data >>>> for long file name is in the buffer. >>>> - Read OK! >>>> >>>> Case 2: >>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the >>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed >>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next >>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored. >>>> - Read fail! >>>> >>>> This commit fixes this issue by: >>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done >>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer >>>> before the read of two next >>>> >>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, >>>> which works good as previous. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This is very interesting! Is this the same failure that I saw on >>> this >>> thread? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revisi... >>> >>> (search for fatload) >>> >>> "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the >>> device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb. >>> >>> Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try >>> from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find >>> the >>> file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what >>> year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? " >>> >>> >>> Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Simon >>> >>> [snip] >>> >> >> Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer >> bug. >> Does this patch fixed your issue? >> >> I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool. >> It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted >> using >> the >> UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using >> U-Boot >> fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full >> automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console. >> >> So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files >> were >> found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful >> for >> the >> "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox. >> My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: >> echo >> "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0. >> >> Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken. >> >> The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can >> change >> fat >> directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read >> right. >> >> I will send the scripts for such simple test. > > > > > I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if > I can make time to test it. > > If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that > fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function > there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from > U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example. > > Regards, > Simon >
Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it was just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.
Somewhat bewildering, but it does not in fact fix my problem.
Here is a compressed version of the fat filesystem if you want to take a look:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7WYZbZ9zd-3NGRMNkFQQTdtV2M/view?usp=sharin...
Regards, Simon
I had put this image on my Trats2 device on partition mmc 0:6 using ums and dd linux command. Next I put latest mainline u-boot, commit: e3bf81b1e841ecabe7c8b3d48621256db8b8623e : "Merge branch 'master' of git://git.denx.de/u-boot-mpc85xx"
So this is the version with the fat bug. But I can see and load the file: "bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb".
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db Trats2 #
The only missing file is "boot.scr", it's ignored by "ls" command but can be loaded...
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 boot.scr reading boot.scr 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100 CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
I suppose that the partition image which you shared for me is little different, than this mentioned in the topic "[PATCH U-Boot] ARM: rpi_b: detect board revision"
Probably the sequence of writing files to this partition was different, and the different file is ignored.
After putting the debug macro on the top of fs/fat/fat.c:
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 VFAT Support enabled FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32 Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000 Data begins at: 80 Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16 FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 RootDentname == NULL - 0
18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
And next test on commit 9b416a9f4ca7cf5ac4d5f7143d67edde7f7d7326 with my fat patch.
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ 256 boot.scr extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000 boot.scr reading boot.scr 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s) Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100 CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
So the only difference on this image is, that with my patch, the file "boot.scr" ignored by ls command is now visible - but in both cases it can be loaded into memory and the crc is correct.
After enabling the debug:
Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6 VFAT Support enabled FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32 Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000 Data begins at: 80 Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16 FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 17840 bootcode.bin 120 cmdline.txt 1331 config.txt 6115 fixup.dat 2324 fixup_cd.dat 9166 fixup_x.dat 3232856 kernel.img 2615064 start.elf END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=81, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 533080 start_cd.elf 3572200 start_x.elf 137 issue.txt 18974 license.oracle 295524 u-boot.bin 1331 config.txt~ 256 boot.scr END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ 3368648 zimage 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb 3963 bcm2835.dtb 3963 bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb END LOOP: j=0 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=83, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 RootDentname == NULL - 0
19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
So as I checked the file: 256 boot.scr is next behind to the: 1331 config.txt~
And this can be checked with hex dump: hd -s 0xa400 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
Your fat image is good example of what my patch fixes.
As you can see on the simple debug info, without the fix,the sector 80 and 81 is stored in the buffer (there are always 2 sectors in the buffer). If you see the hex dump of the second sector:
hd -s 0xa200 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
You will see that at the end of this sector, there is a long name entry for file "boot.scr".
In the next loop (without the fix): END LOOP: j=1 clust_size=16 FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16 extlinux/ the sector 82 and 83 is loaded in to the buffer, so the long name entry of "boot.scr" file from the end of sector 81 is now in the heaven, and the file will be ignored by the ls command.
The sector 82 can be checked by: hd -s 0xa400 -n 512 bad-fat.dd
It begins with the short name entry of file "boot.scr".
After applying my fix, there are always three sectors in the buffer, because the last one is moved into the buffer begin and two next are loaded into the buffer next to the last one. And the buffer pointer is always on the second buffered sector beside first loop.
So I think this patch fixes the issue well.
Could you describe your issue more precisely?
I think you left out the path. The file I tried to load was:
/syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
It works OK without the path on the front.
Regards, Simon
Yes I didn't use any path. But why are you using such path, if there is no such directory? There is only /extlinux directory on the fat image which you shared.
This is a feature of the extlinux system, a general way of loading a kernel that U-Boot now supports. It feels like a U-Boot bug to me.
Regards, Simon
Oh, I see. I didn't used this yet.
But anyway, the fat image which you shared also shows the bug in the fat.
Best regards,
Hi,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov lebon@lebon.org.ua Cc: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Cc: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de
fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chomium.org
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644 --- a/fs/fat/fat.c +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, int ret = -1; int firsttime; __u32 root_cluster = 0;
__u32 read_blk; int rootdir_size = 0;
int j;
int j, k;
What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might save needing a comment for them.
int do_read;__u8 *dir_ptr;
Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) { debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");@@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, }
j = 0;
k = 0; while (1) { int i;
if (j == 0) {
if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) {dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;k = 1;} else {dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block + mydata->sect_size);memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr, mydata->sect_size);}do_read = 1;if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j)do_read = 0;if (do_read) { debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n", cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
if (disk_read(cursect,(mydata->fatsize == 32) ?(mydata->clust_size) :PREFETCH_BLOCKS,do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) { debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n"); goto exit; }
dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr; } for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {@@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
get_vfatname(mydata, root_cluster,
do_fat_read_at_block,
dir_ptr, dentptr, l_name); if (dols == LS_ROOT) {-- 1.9.1
Regards, Simon
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov lebon@lebon.org.ua Cc: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Cc: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de
fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chomium.org
Thank you.
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644 --- a/fs/fat/fat.c +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, int ret = -1; int firsttime; __u32 root_cluster = 0;
__u32 read_blk; int rootdir_size = 0;
int j;
int j, k;What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might save needing a comment for them.
k is a counter for a first time read. I will change this code and add some comment.
int do_read;__u8 *dir_ptr;Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) { debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");@@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, }
j = 0;
k = 0; while (1) { int i;
if (j == 0) {
if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) {dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;k = 1;} else {dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block + mydata->sect_size);memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr, mydata->sect_size);}do_read = 1;if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j)do_read = 0;if (do_read) { debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n", cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
if (disk_read(cursect,(mydata->fatsize == 32) ?(mydata->clust_size) :PREFETCH_BLOCKS,do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) { debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n"); goto exit; }
dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr; } for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {@@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
get_vfatname(mydata, root_cluster,
do_fat_read_at_block,
dir_ptr, dentptr, l_name); if (dols == LS_ROOT) {-- 1.9.1
Regards, Simon
Thank you and best regards,
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov lebon@lebon.org.ua Cc: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Cc: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de
fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chomium.org
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644 --- a/fs/fat/fat.c +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, int ret = -1; int firsttime; __u32 root_cluster = 0;
__u32 read_blk; int rootdir_size = 0;
int j;
int j, k;What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might save needing a comment for them.
int do_read;__u8 *dir_ptr;Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
__u8 is used in a whole fat code, and also as a directory entry buffer, so why not to keep the whole code style?
if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) { debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");@@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, }
j = 0;
k = 0; while (1) { int i;
if (j == 0) {
if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) {dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;k = 1;} else {dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block + mydata->sect_size);memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr, mydata->sect_size);}do_read = 1;if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j)do_read = 0;if (do_read) { debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n", cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
if (disk_read(cursect,(mydata->fatsize == 32) ?(mydata->clust_size) :PREFETCH_BLOCKS,do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) { debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n"); goto exit; }
dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr; } for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {@@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
get_vfatname(mydata, root_cluster,
do_fat_read_at_block,
dir_ptr, dentptr, l_name); if (dols == LS_ROOT) {-- 1.9.1
Regards, Simon
Thanks,
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 18 December 2014 at 07:32, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov lebon@lebon.org.ua Cc: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Cc: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de
fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chomium.org
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644 --- a/fs/fat/fat.c +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, int ret = -1; int firsttime; __u32 root_cluster = 0;
__u32 read_blk; int rootdir_size = 0;
int j;
int j, k;What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might save needing a comment for them.
int do_read;__u8 *dir_ptr;Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
__u8 is used in a whole fat code, and also as a directory entry buffer, so why not to keep the whole code style?
OK, sounds good.
Do you have any ideas on the bug I reported?
if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) { debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");@@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, }
j = 0;
k = 0; while (1) { int i;
if (j == 0) {
if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) {dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;k = 1;} else {dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block +mydata->sect_size);
memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr,mydata->sect_size);
}do_read = 1;if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j)do_read = 0;if (do_read) { debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d,DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n", cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
if (disk_read(cursect,(mydata->fatsize == 32) ?(mydata->clust_size) :PREFETCH_BLOCKS,do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) { debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n"); goto exit; }
dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr; } for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {@@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
get_vfatname(mydata, root_cluster,
do_fat_read_at_block,
dir_ptr, dentptr, l_name); if (dols == LS_ROOT) {-- 1.9.1
Regards, Simon
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 03:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 18 December 2014 at 07:32, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov lebon@lebon.org.ua Cc: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Cc: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de
fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chomium.org
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644 --- a/fs/fat/fat.c +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, int ret = -1; int firsttime; __u32 root_cluster = 0;
__u32 read_blk; int rootdir_size = 0;
int j;
int j, k;What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might save needing a comment for them.
int do_read;__u8 *dir_ptr;Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
__u8 is used in a whole fat code, and also as a directory entry buffer, so why not to keep the whole code style?
OK, sounds good.
Do you have any ideas on the bug I reported?
No, but I think that this is not any fat issue.
if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) { debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");@@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, }
j = 0;
k = 0; while (1) { int i;
if (j == 0) {
if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) {dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;k = 1;} else {dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block +mydata->sect_size);
memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr,mydata->sect_size);
}do_read = 1;if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j)do_read = 0;if (do_read) { debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d,DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n", cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
if (disk_read(cursect,(mydata->fatsize == 32) ?(mydata->clust_size) :PREFETCH_BLOCKS,do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) { debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n"); goto exit; }
dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr; } for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {@@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
get_vfatname(mydata, root_cluster,
do_fat_read_at_block,
dir_ptr, dentptr, l_name); if (dols == LS_ROOT) {-- 1.9.1
Regards, Simon
Thanks,
Hi,
On 18 December 2014 at 07:40, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 03:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 18 December 2014 at 07:32, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov lebon@lebon.org.ua Cc: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Cc: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de
fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chomium.org
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644 --- a/fs/fat/fat.c +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, int ret = -1; int firsttime; __u32 root_cluster = 0;
__u32 read_blk; int rootdir_size = 0;
int j;
int j, k;What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might save needing a comment for them.
int do_read;__u8 *dir_ptr;Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
__u8 is used in a whole fat code, and also as a directory entry buffer, so why not to keep the whole code style?
OK, sounds good.
Do you have any ideas on the bug I reported?
No, but I think that this is not any fat issue.
Can you explain what you mean here? What other software could be causing this?
Regards, Simon
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 03:56 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 18 December 2014 at 07:40, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 03:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Przemyslaw,
On 18 December 2014 at 07:32, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
Hello,
On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi,
On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov lebon@lebon.org.ua Cc: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Cc: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de
fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chomium.org
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644 --- a/fs/fat/fat.c +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, int ret = -1; int firsttime; __u32 root_cluster = 0;
__u32 read_blk; int rootdir_size = 0;
int j;
int j, k;What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might save needing a comment for them.
int do_read;__u8 *dir_ptr;Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
__u8 is used in a whole fat code, and also as a directory entry buffer, so why not to keep the whole code style?
OK, sounds good.
Do you have any ideas on the bug I reported?
No, but I think that this is not any fat issue.
Can you explain what you mean here? What other software could be causing this?
Regards, Simon
The fat code is quite unreadable, but it is simple. Passing the "/syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb" as the fatload argument is just treat as a "/syslinux" directory which doesn't exists. So the file can't be read, right?
Best regards,
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer. - Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored. - Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by: - read two sectors after loop on each single is done - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov lebon@lebon.org.ua Cc: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Cc: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de
--- Changes v2: - add more expressive variable names - add code comment to the patch change --- fs/fat/fat.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c index 04a51db..bccc3e3 100644 --- a/fs/fat/fat.c +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, int ret = -1; int firsttime; __u32 root_cluster = 0; + __u32 read_blk; int rootdir_size = 0; - int j; + int buffer_blk_cnt; + int do_read; + __u8 *dir_ptr;
if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) { debug("Error: reading boot sector\n"); @@ -909,24 +912,54 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, isdir = 1; }
- j = 0; + buffer_blk_cnt = 0; + firsttime = 1; while (1) { int i;
- if (j == 0) { - debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n", - cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK); + if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || firsttime) { + dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block; + firsttime = 0; + } else { + /** + * FAT16 sector buffer modification: + * Each loop, the second buffered block is moved to + * the buffer begin, and two next sectors are read + * next to the previously moved one. So the sector + * buffer keeps always 3 sectors for fat16. + * And the current sector is the buffer second sector + * beside the "firsttime" read, when it is the first one. + * + * PREFETCH_BLOCKS is 2 for FAT16 == loop[0:1] + * n = computed root dir sector + * loop | cursect-1 | cursect | cursect+1 | + * 0 | sector n+0 | sector n+1 | none | + * 1 | none | sector n+0 | sector n+1 | + * 0 | sector n+1 | sector n+2 | sector n+3 | + * 1 | sector n+3 | ... + */ + dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block + mydata->sect_size); + memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr, mydata->sect_size); + } + + do_read = 1; + + if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && buffer_blk_cnt) + do_read = 0; + + if (do_read) { + read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ? + mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS; + + debug("FAT read(sect=%d, cnt:%d), clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n", + cursect, read_blk, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
- if (disk_read(cursect, - (mydata->fatsize == 32) ? - (mydata->clust_size) : - PREFETCH_BLOCKS, - do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) { + if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) { debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n"); goto exit; }
- dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block; + dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr; }
for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) { @@ -951,7 +984,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
get_vfatname(mydata, root_cluster, - do_fat_read_at_block, + dir_ptr, dentptr, l_name);
if (dols == LS_ROOT) { @@ -1062,7 +1095,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
goto rootdir_done; /* We got a match */ } - debug("END LOOP: j=%d clust_size=%d\n", j, + debug("END LOOP: buffer_blk_cnt=%d clust_size=%d\n", buffer_blk_cnt, mydata->clust_size);
/* @@ -1070,10 +1103,10 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, * root directory clusters when a cluster has been * completely processed. */ - ++j; + ++buffer_blk_cnt; int rootdir_end = 0; if (mydata->fatsize == 32) { - if (j == mydata->clust_size) { + if (buffer_blk_cnt == mydata->clust_size) { int nxtsect = 0; int nxt_clust = 0;
@@ -1086,11 +1119,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, root_cluster = nxt_clust;
cursect = nxtsect; - j = 0; + buffer_blk_cnt = 0; } } else { - if (j == PREFETCH_BLOCKS) - j = 0; + if (buffer_blk_cnt == PREFETCH_BLOCKS) + buffer_blk_cnt = 0;
rootdir_end = (++cursect - mydata->rootdir_sect >= rootdir_size);
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer. - Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored. - Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by: - read two sectors after loop on each single is done - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov lebon@lebon.org.ua Cc: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Cc: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chomium.org
--- Changes v2: - add more expressive variable names - add code comment to the patch change
Changes v3: - add Tested-by --- fs/fat/fat.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c index 04a51db..bccc3e3 100644 --- a/fs/fat/fat.c +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, int ret = -1; int firsttime; __u32 root_cluster = 0; + __u32 read_blk; int rootdir_size = 0; - int j; + int buffer_blk_cnt; + int do_read; + __u8 *dir_ptr;
if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) { debug("Error: reading boot sector\n"); @@ -909,24 +912,54 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, isdir = 1; }
- j = 0; + buffer_blk_cnt = 0; + firsttime = 1; while (1) { int i;
- if (j == 0) { - debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n", - cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK); + if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || firsttime) { + dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block; + firsttime = 0; + } else { + /** + * FAT16 sector buffer modification: + * Each loop, the second buffered block is moved to + * the buffer begin, and two next sectors are read + * next to the previously moved one. So the sector + * buffer keeps always 3 sectors for fat16. + * And the current sector is the buffer second sector + * beside the "firsttime" read, when it is the first one. + * + * PREFETCH_BLOCKS is 2 for FAT16 == loop[0:1] + * n = computed root dir sector + * loop | cursect-1 | cursect | cursect+1 | + * 0 | sector n+0 | sector n+1 | none | + * 1 | none | sector n+0 | sector n+1 | + * 0 | sector n+1 | sector n+2 | sector n+3 | + * 1 | sector n+3 | ... + */ + dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block + mydata->sect_size); + memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr, mydata->sect_size); + } + + do_read = 1; + + if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && buffer_blk_cnt) + do_read = 0; + + if (do_read) { + read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ? + mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS; + + debug("FAT read(sect=%d, cnt:%d), clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n", + cursect, read_blk, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
- if (disk_read(cursect, - (mydata->fatsize == 32) ? - (mydata->clust_size) : - PREFETCH_BLOCKS, - do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) { + if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) { debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n"); goto exit; }
- dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block; + dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr; }
for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) { @@ -951,7 +984,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
get_vfatname(mydata, root_cluster, - do_fat_read_at_block, + dir_ptr, dentptr, l_name);
if (dols == LS_ROOT) { @@ -1062,7 +1095,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
goto rootdir_done; /* We got a match */ } - debug("END LOOP: j=%d clust_size=%d\n", j, + debug("END LOOP: buffer_blk_cnt=%d clust_size=%d\n", buffer_blk_cnt, mydata->clust_size);
/* @@ -1070,10 +1103,10 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, * root directory clusters when a cluster has been * completely processed. */ - ++j; + ++buffer_blk_cnt; int rootdir_end = 0; if (mydata->fatsize == 32) { - if (j == mydata->clust_size) { + if (buffer_blk_cnt == mydata->clust_size) { int nxtsect = 0; int nxt_clust = 0;
@@ -1086,11 +1119,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer, root_cluster = nxt_clust;
cursect = nxtsect; - j = 0; + buffer_blk_cnt = 0; } } else { - if (j == PREFETCH_BLOCKS) - j = 0; + if (buffer_blk_cnt == PREFETCH_BLOCKS) + buffer_blk_cnt = 0;
rootdir_end = (++cursect - mydata->rootdir_sect >= rootdir_size);
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:14:17PM +0100, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors, the we have two cases:
Case 1: Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!
Case 2: The current directory entry is placed at the end of the second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!
This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer before the read of two next
The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation, which works good as previous.
Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak p.marczak@samsung.com Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov lebon@lebon.org.ua Cc: Tom Rini trini@ti.com Cc: Stephen Warren swarren@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Suriyan Ramasami suriyan.r@gmail.com Cc: Lukasz Majewski l.majewski@samsung.com Cc: Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chomium.org
Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!
participants (3)
-
Przemyslaw Marczak -
Simon Glass -
Tom Rini