On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 01:43:58 AM, Chin Liang See wrote: > On Mon, 2015-12-14 at 01:22 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 01:11:27 AM, Chin Liang See wrote: > > > On Sun, 2015-12-13 at 16:42 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 02:03:02 PM, Chin Liang See > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 2015-12-13 at 04:14 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 01:49:06 AM, Chin Liang See > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, 2015-12-13 at 01:01 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 12:59:48 AM, Chin Liang > > > > > > > > See > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2015-12-12 at 16:36 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 07:30:46 AM, Chin > > > > > > > > > > Liang > > > > > > > > > > See > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you share the final layout before you roll > > > > > > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > > > > patches ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, plan to do so but need to away from desk just > > > > > > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the old layout > > > > > > > > > > > 256k(spl) > > > > > > > > > > > 64k(env) > > > > > > > > > > > 64k(dtb) > > > > > > > > > > > 256k(boot) > > > > > > > > > > > 16m(kernel) > > > > > > > > > > > 16m(rootfs) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The new one would like this > > > > > > > > > > > 256k(spl) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd say you should just call this u-boot, see above > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > rationale. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 256k(env) > > > > > > > > > > > 15872k(boot) > > > > > > > > > > > 16m(rootfs) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The boot partition can be used as ubi part or raw > > > > > > > > > > > partition. > > > > > > > > > > > It contains the linux dtb, u-boot and linux images. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is that an UBIFS partition ? If so, why don't you > > > > > > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > > > > two > > > > > > > > > > UBI > > > > > > > > > > volumes ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For backward compatibility, it can be raw if user want > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > stick > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > old way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you're breaking the partitioning layout anyway, you > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > care about the "old way", right ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually this partition can be used as raw partition if > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > want > > > > > > > to store zimage and dtb as raw binary. > > > > > > > > > > > > You should never store raw zImage/dtb in a flash on a > > > > > > production > > > > > > system. > > > > > > This is real bad and can result in a corruption in the future > > > > > > when > > > > > > the > > > > > > system is in the field for a long time. I'd suggest to just > > > > > > use > > > > > > two > > > > > > UBI > > > > > > volumes, one for fitImage and the other for rootfs. > > > > > > > > > > Yup, we are trying to move the raw away by having UBI enabled. > > > > > I > > > > > presume when you refer 2 UBI volumes, I presume its still > > > > > single > > > > > UBI > > > > > partition? > > > > > > > > Yeah, one UBI partition with two UBI volumes -- boot and root. > > > > > > Ok I grasp you correctly. In this case, I would suggest to opt for > > > 2 > > > partitions instead of 2 volumes. User can just use sf erase rootfs > > > instead of checking for volume offset. I suspect the ubi part will > > > take > > > longer time if we are having one partition only. I shall send out > > > the > > > new revision if this works for you :) > > > > Oh, I see what you're concerned about. On the other hand, you are not > > supposed > > to erase UBI partition, since that'd nuke the UBI erase counters and > > UBI would > > loose track of how many times each block was erased, which helps with > > wear > > leveling. > > > > If you're adamant about two UBI partitions , you can try the trick > > where you can > > create overlapping mtd partitions, that way you'd have both options > > available. > > (it is actually a legal construction, you can check the kernel MTD > > docs). > > After grabbing a coffee
That's a good idea, though I think I will make do with a green tea (抹茶). > and rethinking, we can have 2 MTD_PARTITION > where one for backward compatiblity (supporting raw) while another for > UBI. > > MTDPARTS_RAW > 256k(spl), > 256k(env), > 15872k(boot), > -(rootfs) > > MTDPARTS_UBI > 256k(spl), > 256k(env), > -(UBI) > > We should make UBI as default then. If user care about backward > compatiblity, they shall use the MTDPARTS_RAW then. Try this: mtdparts=1m(u-boot),256k(env1),256k(env2),14848k(boot),112m(root),-@1536k(UBI) This will create overlapping partitions "boot,root" and "UBI" . _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
