Hi, without specifying any of the options from Torstens commit, with my PR the following is printed during boot: [ 13.493508] pci 0000:02:00.0: xHCI HW not ready after 5 sec (HC bug?) status = 0x801 [ 13.499854] pci 0000:02:00.0: quirk_usb_early_handoff+0x0/0x8f4 took 4894168 usecs [ 13.509105] UBI: auto-attach mtd1 [ 13.511042] ubi0: attaching mtd1 [ 13.672281] ubi0: scanning is finished [ 13.687360] ubi0: attached mtd1 (name "ubi", size 48 MiB) [ 13.691364] ubi0: PEB size: 131072 bytes (128 KiB), LEB size: 129024 bytes [ 13.698322] ubi0: min./max. I/O unit sizes: 2048/2048, sub-page size 512 [ 13.705011] ubi0: VID header offset: 512 (aligned 512), data offset: 2048 [ 13.711700] ubi0: good PEBs: 384, bad PEBs: 0, corrupted PEBs: 0 [ 13.717793] ubi0: user volume: 2, internal volumes: 1, max. volumes count: 128 [ 13.724992] ubi0: max/mean erase counter: 2/0, WL threshold: 4096, image sequence number: 955112811 [ 13.734025] ubi0: available PEBs: 0, total reserved PEBs: 384, PEBs reserved for bad PEB handling: 80 [ 13.743384] ubi0: background thread "ubi_bgt0d" started, PID 456 [ 13.751194] block ubiblock0_0: created from ubi0:0(rootfs) [ 13.755363] ubiblock: device ubiblock0_0 (rootfs) set to be root fil[ 13.768689] Freeing unused kernel memory: 3820K [ 13.771792] This architecture does not have kernel memory protection. [ 13.778325] Run /init as init process
In the Image config, $(Device/NAND) is specified, which uses the definitions from target/lantiq/image/Makefile, isn't that already ubifs enablement? It was not required to build any of the ubi images to get the messages above. So is the creation of the ubi image really neccessary? What additional benefit does building the ubi images have? And as you can see, even though $(Device/NAND) specifies 4k page size, ubi will use what the NAND chip declares. Thanks. -----Original-Nachricht----- Betreff: Re: [PATCH 0/7] lantiq: initial support for x490 Fritzboxes Datum: 2022-02-14T23:48:41+0100 Von: "Mathias Kresin" <[email protected]> An: "Torsten Duwe" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 2/14/22 11:06, Torsten Duwe: > On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 02:05:17 +0100 > Mathias Kresin <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2/11/22 23:39, [email protected]: >>> I created a DTB and image configuration for Micron and non Micron >>> NAND. This is probably the best way and not supporting just one >>> NAND type per device. Unfortunately auto detection was not accepted >>> by the kernel maintainers, so there is no other solution. >>> >>> I also saw the addition of ubifs. I have not used this so far and I >>> wonder what the advantage is over using squashfs with overlay? >> >> Let me cite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBIFS >> >> - tracking NAND flash bad blocks >> - providing wear leveling >> >> NAND is a rather unreliable type of flash, hence some special >> treatment has to be done to make it last as long as possible. > > Yes, I somehow had gotten the impression that UBI was mandatory for > OpenWRT ports to new devices with NAND, so I went that way. > > Is sysupgrade prepared for squashfs+overlay as UBI volumes? Yes, sysupgrade is fine. It's used for the BT Home Hub 5A for example. Mathias _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
