On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 15:29 +0100, Richard Genoud wrote:
> > Unfortunately I have no additional information why it happened, but
> anyway is it really necessary to runs ubiformat+ubimkvol for such
> cases? Or is it possible to recover data?
> I honestly don't know, but I'm sure Artem has some idea
2013/3/1 Velykokhatko, Sergey :
> Hi Richard,
>
>>And if you want to tweak the BEB_LIMIT for each of your UBI partition, it's
>>possible, via the ubiattach call ( get the master branchof of
>>git://git.infradead.org/mtd-utils.git ) cf
>>http://git.infradead.org/mtd-utils.git/commit/878e06ea555ba
ks a lot,
Best regards,
Sergey
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Richard Genoud [mailto:richard.gen...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 1. März 2013 13:10
An: Velykokhatko, Sergey
Cc: Brian Norris; linux-...@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
artem.bityuts...@linux.intel.c
2013/3/1 Velykokhatko, Sergey :
> Hi Richard,
>
> Thanks a lot for your explanations. Now at least I understand your logic. And
> it seems to be reasonable. Your start point that all bad blocks for flash
> chip could be placed in single MTD. This is really worst worst case, but...
> Theoreticall
On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Richard Genoud wrote:
From a Micron Nand datasheet :
Micron NAND devices are specified to have a minimum of 2,008 (NVB)
valid blocks out
of every 2,048 total available blocks. This means the devices may have
blocks that are
invalid when they are shipped. An invalid block is
gey
Cc: Brian Norris; linux-...@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
artem.bityuts...@linux.intel.com
Betreff: Re: Bug in mtd_get_device_size()?
2013/3/1 Velykokhatko, Sergey :
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks for your answer. Ok, I have nothing against that my interpretation of
2013/3/1 Velykokhatko, Sergey :
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks for your answer. Ok, I have nothing against that my interpretation of
> mtd_get_device_size() purpose is wrong. But what you mean under: "Because
> your BEB_LIMIT=100, you are reserving 100*size/1024 (that is 9.8% of your
> total size, or 40
@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Freitag, 1. März 2013 09:11
An: Brian Norris
Cc: Velykokhatko, Sergey; linux-...@lists.infradead.org;
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; artem.bityuts...@linux.intel.com
Betreff: Re: Bug in mtd_get_device_size()?
2013/2/28 Brian Norris :
> + Richard
>
> On Thu, Feb
80.0K 29.4M 0% /run
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Brian Norris [mailto:computersforpe...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Februar 2013 18:25
An: Velykokhatko, Sergey
Cc: linux-...@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
artem.bityuts...@linux.intel.com; Richard
+ Richard
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Velykokhatko, Sergey
wrote:
> I got today such case:
>
> * Kernel 3.8
>
> * We are using M29F2G16 NAND chip with 4096 blocks, each has 128k
>
> * Configured with CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT=100
This is your problem. See below for more com
10 matches
Mail list logo
