Josh Boyer wrote:
> > I was under the impression from past emails on the MTD list that the
> > internal meta format for UBI has changed a few times over its lifetime.
> >
> > Assuming this continues, I would think this would cause problems for
> > bootloaders such as U-Boot whose flash partition
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 08:44 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> I think there was only 1 time the on-flash format changed, and that was
>> before UBI was merged upstream. New features can be introduced with
>> additional flags, however older versions should
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 15:36 +0200, Ricard Wanderlof wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 00:22 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Wolfgang showed some interest briefly too.[1]
> >>
> >> I am definitely
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 00:22 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>>
>>> Wolfgang showed some interest briefly too.[1]
>>
>> I am definitely interested.
>
> What I would suggest to start with is to teach U-boot to
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 05:04:14PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> I was thinking this:
>
> Hamish Moffatt wrote (Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
> > Sorry I should've said 512MiB perhaps: 512 megabytes.
> > UBI attach time appears to be about 6 seconds.
>
> If 6 seconds is as fast as it can be do
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> Wolfgang showed some interest briefly too.[1]
I am definitely interested.
> > The UBI (version 1 :-) initial scan is not
> > fast for large flash, and if the bootloader does it too, that's twice
> > as much time to boot.
We have the same (at at lea
Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt wrote (Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
> > > Sorry I should've said 512MiB perhaps: 512 megabytes.
> > > UBI attach time appears to be about 6 seconds.
> >
> > If 6 seconds is as fast as it can be done, annoying but fair enough.
>
> You should read that thre
On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 17:04 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > Is it even a good idea? The UBI (version 1 :-) initial scan is not
> > > fast for large flash, and if the bootloader does it too, that's twice
> > > as much time to boot.
> >
> > It's a good idea, yes. Particularly
Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Is it even a good idea? The UBI (version 1 :-) initial scan is not
> > fast for large flash, and if the bootloader does it too, that's twice
> > as much time to boot.
>
> It's a good idea, yes. Particularly if you want to boot from NAND
> flash.
>
> Can you define "large d
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 17:59 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 22:21 +0800, Bernard Blackham wrote:
> > > [apologies for the cross post]
> > > Is anyone working on ubi/ubifs support in u-boot?
> >
> > I am not aware of anyone actively working on porting UBI to
Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> Is anyone working on ubi/ubifs support in u-boot?
>> I am not aware of anyone actively working on porting UBI to upstream
>> U-Boot at this exact moment.
>
> Is it even a good idea?
From what I've seen, UBI is the first solution with the potential for
Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 22:21 +0800, Bernard Blackham wrote:
> > [apologies for the cross post]
> > Is anyone working on ubi/ubifs support in u-boot?
>
> I am not aware of anyone actively working on porting UBI to upstream
> U-Boot at this exact moment.
Is it even a good idea?
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 22:21 +0800, Bernard Blackham wrote:
> [apologies for the cross post]
>
> Is anyone working on ubi/ubifs support in u-boot?
I am not aware of anyone actively working on porting UBI to upstream
U-Boot at this exact moment.
josh
-
[apologies for the cross post]
Is anyone working on ubi/ubifs support in u-boot?
Kind regards,
Bernard.
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's stil
14 matches
Mail list logo
