Hi Steve,
On 14-06-19 11:32 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
On Friday, June 20, 2014 at 08:18:42 AM, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
Hi Steve,
This series implements the "fastboot flash" command for eMMC
devices. It supports both raw and sparse images.
NOTES:
- the support for the "fastboot flash" command is enabled with
CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH
- the support for eMMC is enabled with
CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_MMC_DEV
- (future) the support for NAND would be enabled with
CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_NAND(???)
- thus the proposal is to place the code in common/fb_mmc.c and
(future) common/fb_nand.c(???), however, this may not be the
appropriate location....
Would you consider another approach for providing flashing backend
for fastboot?
I'd like to propose reusing of the dfu flashing code for this
purpose. Such approach has been used successfully with USB "thor"
downloading function.
Since the "fastboot" is using gadget infrastructure (thanks to the
effort of Rob Herring) I think that it would be feasible to reuse
the same approach as "thor" does. In this way the low level code
would be kept in one place and we could refine and test it more
thoroughly.
I'm all for this approach as well if possible.
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
I have briefly investigated this suggestion....
And have 'hacked' some code as follows:
--- common/fb_mmc.c_000 2014-06-20 14:13:43.271158073 -0700
+++ common/fb_mmc.c_001 2014-06-20 14:17:48.688072764 -0700
while (remaining_chunks) {
switch (le16_to_cpu(c_header->chunk_type)) {
case CHUNK_TYPE_RAW:
+#if 0
blkcnt =
(le32_to_cpu(c_header->chunk_sz)
* blk_sz) / info.blksz;
buffer =
(void *)c_header +
le16_to_cpu(s_header->chunk_hdr_sz);
blks =
mmc_dev->block_write(mmc_dev->dev, blk, blkcnt, buffer);
if (blks != blkcnt) {
printf("Write failed
%lu\n", blks); strcpy(response,
"FAILmmc write
failure"); return;
}
bytes_written += blkcnt *
info.blksz; +#else
+ buffer =
+ (void *)c_header +
+
le16_to_cpu(s_header->chunk_hdr_sz); +
+ len =
le32_to_cpu(c_header->chunk_sz) * blk_sz;
+ ret_dfu = dfu_write_medium_mmc(dfu,
offset,
+
buffer, &len);
+ if (ret_dfu) {
+ printf("Write failed %lu\n",
len);
+ strcpy(response,
+ "FAILmmc write
failure");
+ return;
+ }
+
+
+ bytes_written += len;
+#endif
break;
case CHUNK_TYPE_FILL:
case CHUNK_TYPE_DONT_CARE:
case CHUNK_TYPE_CRC32:
/* do nothing */
break;
default:
/* error */
printf("Unknown chunk type\n");
strcpy(response,
"FAILunknown chunk type in
sparse image"); return;
}
+#if 0
blk += (le32_to_cpu(c_header->chunk_sz) *
blk_sz) / info.blksz;
+#else
+ offset += le32_to_cpu(c_header->chunk_sz) *
blk_sz; +#endif
c_header = (chunk_header_t *)((void
*)c_header + le32_to_cpu(c_header->total_sz));
remaining_chunks--;
}
--- common/fb_mmc.c_000 2014-06-20 14:13:43.271158073 -0700
+++ common/fb_mmc.c_001 2014-06-20 14:17:48.688072764 -0700
/* raw image */
+#if 0
/* determine number of blocks to write */
blkcnt =
((download_bytes + (info.blksz - 1)) &
~(info.blksz - 1)); blkcnt = blkcnt / info.blksz;
if (blkcnt > info.size) {
printf("%s: too large for partition:
'%s'\n", __func__, cmd);
strcpy(response, "FAILtoo large for
partition"); return;
}
printf("Flashing Raw Image\n");
blks = mmc_dev->block_write(mmc_dev->dev,
info.start, blkcnt, download_buffer);
if (blks != blkcnt) {
printf("%s: failed writing to mmc device
%d\n", __func__, mmc_dev->dev);
strcpy(response, "FAILfailed writing to mmc
device"); return;
}
printf("........ wrote %lu bytes to '%s'\n",
blkcnt * info.blksz, cmd);
+#else
+ printf("Flashing Raw Image\n");
+
+ ret_dfu = dfu_write_medium_mmc(dfu, offset,
download_buffer, &len);
+ if (ret_dfu) {
+ printf("%s: failed writing to mmc device
%d\n",
+ __func__, mmc_dev->dev);
+ strcpy(response, "FAILfailed writing to mmc
device");
+ return;
+ }
+
+ printf("........ wrote %lu bytes to '%s'\n", len,
cmd); +#endif
}
NOTE:
- I know that I cannot call "dfu_write_medium_mmc()" directly -- but
I just wanted to test this functionality
Indeed, it looks like an early proof-of-concept code :-).
My initial reaction is that using the DFU backend to effectively call
the mmc block_write() function seems to cause an unnecessary amount
of overhead;
It also allows to access/write data to other media - like NAND memory.
and the only thing that it really provides is a proven
method of calculating the "number of blocks to write"...
I would be more interested in this backend if it would provide:
- handling of the "sparse image format"
-- would a CONFIG option to include this in the DFU_OP_WRITE
You are welcome to prepare patch which adds such functionality.
Moreover, in the u-boot-dfu repository (master branch) you can find
initial version of the regression tests for DFU.
Extending the current one, or adding your own would be awesome :-)
case of the "mmc_block_op()" be acceptable?
- a method which uses "get_partition_info_efi_by_name()"
-- no ideas yet...
I'm looking forward for RFC.
If the consensus is to use this DFU backend, then I will continue is
this direction.
That would be great.
Please advise,
Thanks, Steve
