On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 08:34 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 12 August 2008, Kyungmin Park wrote: > >> > On Monday 11 August 2008, Kyungmin Park wrote: > >> >> Actually the Samsung implemented the UBI support on U-boot already and > >> >> has used it internally. The big difference is the code base. It's > >> >> based on kernel UBI code. Yes it's not fit well to u-boot ecosystem so > >> >> it created the ubi wrapper for u-boot. > >> > > >> > And how does NAND/OneNAND booting with UBI support fit into this? I > >> > assume that you have some size restrictions for the IPL/SPL on your > >> > platforms as well. > >> > >> It's not yet covered. it's TODO > > > > I see. > > > > Yes, we should make a u-boot within one block size since flash only > guarantees the first one block as bad block free. e.g., exactly > (128KiB - 2KiB) size if OneNAND case. > For this, we need to code or size optimization. > If this is solved, we can use flash as bad block free device with UBI.
An alternative to that is to have a very small IPL that loads U-Boot to DRAM as the SPL. That would require some relocatable support in U-Boot. josh _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
