I created a custom board similar to the ZCU102. I'm unable to flash a UBIFS image to the SPI NOR flash and boot from it, and I suspect it's because U-Boot and Linux report different eraseblock sizes.
On the ZCU102 is a dual-parallel configuration of two MT25QU512ABB SPI NOR flash parts. On my board is a dual-parallel configuration of two MT25QL01GBBB SPI NOR flash parts. Building u-boot-xlnx and linux-xlnx with meta-xilinx 2017.3 (with some patches of our own) we booted the ZCU102 and were able to flash a UBIFS image to the QSPI flash. The part's datasheet indicates the block size is 64KiB, which I suppose means a parallel combination of two parts gives an effective "block size" of 128KiB. (ZCU102) U-boot: sf probe 0 0 0 SF: Detected n25q512a with page size 512 Bytes, erase size 128 KiB, total 128 MiB Linux: [ 2.457935] m25p80 spi0.0: found n25q512a, expected m25p80 [ 2.463463] m25p80 spi0.0: n25q512a (131072 Kbytes) mtdinfo /dev/mtd0 Eraseblock size: 131072 bytes, 128.0 KiB Amount of eraseblocks: 8 (1048576 bytes, 1024.0 KiB) Building u-boot-xlnx and linux-xlnx with meta-xilinx 2018.1 now, targeting the custom board, Linux and U-boot seem to disagree about the eraseblock size. U-boot reports 128KiB (as I expect) and Linux reports 64KiB. (Custom Board) U-boot: sf probe 0 0 0 SF: Detected n25q1024 with page size 512 Bytes, erase size 128 KiB, total 256 MiB Linux: [ 3.379723] m25p80 spi0.0: found n25q00, expected m25p80 [ 3.379942] m25p80 spi0.0: n25q00 (262144 Kbytes) mtdinfo /dev/mtd0 Eraseblock size: 65536 bytes, 64.0 KiB Amount of eraseblocks: 4096 (268435456 bytes, 256.0 MiB) I'm not worried about the different part names reported by U-boot and Linux, because they map to the same ID number in the U-boot and Linux source code. But I'd like to figure out why the eraseblock size differs. Kevin Kruse Design Engineer Integre Technologies, LLC
-- _______________________________________________ meta-xilinx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-xilinx
