Luca Ceresoli wrote:
Hi,
I'm Cc'ing the linux-mtd list as well as the authors of the Linux
commits cited below.
For these new readers: I reported a problem with U-Boot 2012.04.01 not
being able to attach an UBI partition in NAND, while Linux (2.6.37) can
attach and repair it.
It looks like an
Hi,
I'm Cc'ing the linux-mtd list as well as the authors of the Linux
commits cited below.
For these new readers: I reported a problem with U-Boot 2012.04.01 not
being able to attach an UBI partition in NAND, while Linux (2.6.37) can
attach and repair it.
It looks like an U-Boot bug, but I disc
Hi Luca,
On 12/19/2012 06:37 PM, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> I had some days ago, but I double-checked now as you suggested. Indeed
> there is an important difference: attach_by_scanning() (build.c) calls
> ubi_wl_init_scan() and ubi_eba_init_scan() just like Linux does, but in
> a swapped order!
>
>
On 12/20/2012 12:17 AM, Vikram Narayanan wrote:
On 12/19/2012 11:52 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
I think its the right time to sync the UBI code with the current kernel
tree. But it seems like a huge work. Any suggestions?
Yes, syncing with the latest UBI/UBIFS code would be the best solution.
Eve
On 12/19/2012 11:52 PM, Stefan Roese wrote:
I think its the right time to sync the UBI code with the current kernel
tree. But it seems like a huge work. Any suggestions?
Yes, syncing with the latest UBI/UBIFS code would be the best solution.
Even though a try with an increased malloc area as s
On 12/19/2012 06:32 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote:
>> On "bricked" devices the output of the "ubi part nand0,3" command is:
>>
>> Creating 1 MTD partitions on "nand0":
>> 0x0010-0x1000 : "mtd=3"
>> UBI: attaching mtd1 to ubi0
>> UBI: physical eraseblock size: 131072 bytes (128 KiB)
>
On 12/19/2012 4:58 PM, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
Hi all,
On "bricked" devices the output of the "ubi part nand0,3" command is:
Creating 1 MTD partitions on "nand0":
0x0010-0x1000 : "mtd=3"
UBI: attaching mtd1 to ubi0
UBI: physical eraseblock size: 131072 bytes (128 KiB)
UBI: log
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Bießmann wrote:
Hi Luca,
On 19.12.2012 16:56, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Bießmann wrote:
...
Creating 1 MTD partitions on "nand0":
0x0010-0x1000 : "mtd=3"
UBI: attaching mtd1 to ubi0
UBI: physical eraseblock size: 131072 bytes (128 KiB)
UBI
Hi Luca,
On 19.12.2012 16:56, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> Andreas Bießmann wrote:
> ...
>>> Creating 1 MTD partitions on "nand0":
>>> 0x0010-0x1000 : "mtd=3"
>>> UBI: attaching mtd1 to ubi0
>>> UBI: physical eraseblock size: 131072 bytes (128 KiB)
>>> UBI: logical era
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Bießmann wrote:
...
Creating 1 MTD partitions on "nand0":
0x0010-0x1000 : "mtd=3"
UBI: attaching mtd1 to ubi0
UBI: physical eraseblock size: 131072 bytes (128 KiB)
UBI: logical eraseblock size:129024 bytes
UBI: smallest flash I/O unit:2048
UBI: sub-p
Dear Luca Ceresoli,
On 19.12.2012 12:28, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am facing a problem with some boards that do not boot after some
> weeks or months of normal usage, being unable to attach UBI. They do
> not boot anymore event after a power cycle, in other words they are
> totally bri
Hi all,
I am facing a problem with some boards that do not boot after some
weeks or months of normal usage, being unable to attach UBI. They do
not boot anymore event after a power cycle, in other words they are
totally bricked.
I don't know exactly what problem UBI has, but it is recoverable by
12 matches
Mail list logo