Hi Maxime, On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:20 AM, Maxime Ripard < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Steve, > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 12:46:02PM -0800, Steve Rae wrote: > > remove logging of the 'skipped' blocks > > > > Signed-off-by: Steve Rae <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > common/image-sparse.c | 6 ++---- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/common/image-sparse.c b/common/image-sparse.c > > index f02aee4..594bf4e 100644 > > --- a/common/image-sparse.c > > +++ b/common/image-sparse.c > > @@ -275,7 +275,6 @@ int store_sparse_image(sparse_storage_t *storage, > void *storage_priv, > > sparse_buffer_t *buffer; > > uint32_t start; > > uint32_t total_blocks = 0; > > - uint32_t skipped = 0; > > int i; > > > > debug("=== Storage ===\n"); > > @@ -334,7 +333,6 @@ int store_sparse_image(sparse_storage_t *storage, > void *storage_priv, > > storage, > > > sparse_header); > > total_blocks += blkcnt; > This change (in the first patch), updates the "total_blocks" value, so that the "next" chunk has the proper "starting block" address (see these line 363...) 362 ret = storage->write(storage, storage_priv, 363 start + total_blocks, 364 buffer_blk_cnt, 365 buffer->data); Without this change, all the blocks written to the partition after the CHUNK_TYPE_DONT_CARE blocks are corrupted (they are not in the correct location). So, even though we are not actually writing any blocks to this space, the space must be maintained! (Recently, I am now understanding that with NAND, there may be more complications; probably cannot just increment the "total_blocks" -- I suspect that it is required to actually determine if there are bad blocks in this space, and update the "total_blocks" value accordingly....) > - skipped += blkcnt; > > continue; > > } > > > > @@ -375,8 +373,8 @@ int store_sparse_image(sparse_storage_t *storage, > void *storage_priv, > > sparse_put_data_buffer(buffer); > > } > > > > - debug("Wrote %d blocks, skipped %d, expected to write %d blocks\n", > > - total_blocks, skipped, > > + debug("Wrote %d blocks, expected to write %d blocks\n", > > + total_blocks, > > What's the rationale between those two patches? > see inline comment above > > Do we really want to treat the DONT_CARE chunks as if they were > written? > I suspect that we do, and "sparse_header->total_blks" actually includes them in the count too... This "total_blocks" count is actually the number of blocks "processed" (which may or may not include actually writing to the partition). IMO - I think counting the "skipped blocks is unnecessary. Thanks, Steve > Maxime > > -- > Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons > Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering > http://free-electrons.com > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
