| Message ID | 1345725030.2848.236.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi, On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:30:30 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote: > From fa7595564e95672ab87d4a910c6bc02123b75e88 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> > Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:01:11 +0300 > Subject: [PATCH] UBI: disallow max_beb_per1024 on NOR flash > > If the flash does not admit of bad blocks (e.g., NOR) - disallow using > 'max_beb_per1024'. > > Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> > --- > > Second attempt, did not test :-) Looks ok to me. Reviewed-by: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com>
On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 15:44 +0300, Shmulik Ladkani wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:30:30 +0300 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com> wrote: > > From fa7595564e95672ab87d4a910c6bc02123b75e88 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> > > Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 13:01:11 +0300 > > Subject: [PATCH] UBI: disallow max_beb_per1024 on NOR flash > > > > If the flash does not admit of bad blocks (e.g., NOR) - disallow using > > 'max_beb_per1024'. > > > > Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > > > Second attempt, did not test :-) > > Looks ok to me. > > Reviewed-by: Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com> Thanks, it is pushed now. The further things we'd need to do are: 1. Somewhat test what we ended up with. 2. Write some documentation. 3. Search for UBI users in the mtd mailing list and send them an e-mail with heads-up, to make sure people have a possibility to complain before this stuff is merged. I can do number 3 :-)
2012/8/23 Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>: > Thanks, it is pushed now. The further things we'd need to do are: > > 1. Somewhat test what we ended up with. > 2. Write some documentation. > 3. Search for UBI users in the mtd mailing list and send them > an e-mail with heads-up, to make sure people have a possibility > to complain before this stuff is merged. > > I can do number 3 :-) I could do some more tests with the final version. I guess that the documentation to update is there: http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/doc/ubi.html The message commit of dccaefbd68ce0c4d83f1d57667726868bdc03cce (UBI: use the whole MTD device size to get bad_peb_limit) could be a start for the "Why?"
On Thu, 2012-08-23 at 15:13 +0200, Richard Genoud wrote: > I could do some more tests with the final version. Thanks! > I guess that the documentation to update is there: > http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/doc/ubi.html Yes, a separate section about how UBI reserves eraseblocks for bad PEBs handling is needed. > The message commit of dccaefbd68ce0c4d83f1d57667726868bdc03cce (UBI: > use the whole MTD device size to get bad_peb_limit) > could be a start for the "Why?" Sure. Additionally, all places where we mention 2% should be amended correspondingly. I guess this commit can be used to locate the places: http://git.infradead.org/mtd-www.git/commit/2b91234cf1dd9968d18679b19d7dbe22b6508cff Also, this section should be amended: http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/doc/ubi.html#L_overhead
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c index 355756b..aaf7df3 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/build.c @@ -646,8 +646,18 @@ static int io_init(struct ubi_device *ubi, int max_beb_per1024) ubi->flash_size = ubi->mtd->size; if (mtd_can_have_bb(ubi->mtd)) { - ubi->bad_allowed = 1; + if (max_beb_per1024 < 0 || + max_beb_per1024 > MAX_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT) + return -EINVAL; + if (!max_beb_per1024) + max_beb_per1024 = CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT; + ubi->bad_peb_limit = get_bad_peb_limit(ubi, max_beb_per1024); + ubi->bad_allowed = 1; + } else if (max_beb_per1024) { + ubi_err("mtd%d does not admit of bad blocks, max_beb_per1024 " + "cannot be used", mtd->index); + return -EINVAL; } if (ubi->mtd->type == MTD_NORFLASH) { @@ -857,12 +867,6 @@ int ubi_attach_mtd_dev(struct mtd_info *mtd, int ubi_num, struct ubi_device *ubi; int i, err, ref = 0; - if (max_beb_per1024 < 0 || max_beb_per1024 > MAX_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT) - return -EINVAL; - - if (!max_beb_per1024) - max_beb_per1024 = CONFIG_MTD_UBI_BEB_LIMIT; - /* * Check if we already have the same MTD device attached. *