lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] mtdblock: Advertise about UBI and UBI block
On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 06:39, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ezequiel,
>
> ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar wrote on Fri, 12 Nov 2021 10:54:36 -0300:
>
> > Hi Trevor,
> >
> > I am not reachable at ezequiel at collabora.com, so I missed this
> > thread. Sorry about the delay, replying.
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Oct 2021 at 12:05, Trevor Woerner <twoerner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun 2021-08-01 @ 08:45:02 PM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > > > Hi Richard, and everyone else:
> > > >
> > > > Browsing the internet for "JFFS2 mtd" results in tutorials, articles
> > > > and github.gists0 that point to mtdblock.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, even the MTD wiki mentions that JFFS2
> > > > needs mtdblock to mount a rootfs:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/jffs2.html
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, I suspect there may be lots of users
> > > > that still believe mtdblock is somehow needed to
> > > > mount SquashFS.
> > > >
> > > > I've taken a verbose route and added a pr_warn
> > > > warning if the devices are NAND. I don't think using
> > > > NAND without UBI is too wise, and given the amount
> > > > of outdated tutorials I believe some advertising
> > > > will help.
> > >
> > > Not all NAND partitions on a device will contain linux root filesystems. For a
> > > linux root filesystem perhaps using UBI/UBIFS is preferred, yet these messages
> > > print out for each and every NAND partition:
> > >
> > > [ 0.900827] Creating 8 MTD partitions on "nxp_lpc3220_slc":
> > > [ 0.906431] 0x000000000000-0x000000020000 : "bootrom"
> > > [ 0.913523] mtdblock: MTD device 'bootrom' is NAND, please consider using UBI block devices instead.
> > > [ 0.933334] 0x000000020000-0x000000080000 : "uboot"
> > > [ 0.940439] mtdblock: MTD device 'uboot' is NAND, please consider using UBI block devices instead.
> > > [ 0.963322] 0x000000080000-0x000000440000 : "fbkernel"
> > > [ 0.970655] mtdblock: MTD device 'fbkernel' is NAND, please consider using UBI block devices instead.
> > > [ 0.993361] 0x000000440000-0x000000920000 : "fbrootfs"
> > > [ 1.000725] mtdblock: MTD device 'fbrootfs' is NAND, please consider using UBI block devices instead.
> > > [ 1.023315] 0x000000920000-0x000000ce0000 : "c_kernel"
> > > [ 1.030722] mtdblock: MTD device 'c_kernel' is NAND, please consider using UBI block devices instead.
> > > [ 1.053444] 0x000000ce0000-0x000000d00000 : "c__atags"
> > > [ 1.060742] mtdblock: MTD device 'c__atags' is NAND, please consider using UBI block devices instead.
> > > [ 1.083349] 0x000000d00000-0x000001000000 : "c_rootfs"
> > > [ 1.090702] mtdblock: MTD device 'c_rootfs' is NAND, please consider using UBI block devices instead.
> > > [ 1.113335] 0x000001000000-0x000020000000 : "mender"
> > > [ 1.131627] mtdblock: MTD device 'mender' is NAND, please consider using UBI block devices instead.
> > >
> > > NAND tends to be something found on older devices, the firmware/bootloaders
> > > of older devices couldn't possibly understand UBI/UBIFS so many of these
> > > partitions need be "raw" partitions, or use something that predates UBI.
> > >
> > > Ironically my "mender" partition contains a UBI (with multiple UBIFSes inside)
> > > yet I got the same "please use UBI" message as all the others (lol)
> > >
> > > I'm specifying my partitions in DT with:
> > >
> > > partitions {
> > > compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> > > #address-cells = <1>;
> > > #size-cells = <1>;
> > >
> > > mtd0@0 { label = "bootrom"; reg = <0x00000000 0x00020000>; };
> > > mtd1@20000 { label = "uboot"; reg = <0x00020000 0x00060000>; };
> > > mtd2@80000 { label = "fbkernel"; reg = <0x00080000 0x003c0000>; };
> > > mtd3@440000 { label = "fbrootfs"; reg = <0x00440000 0x004e0000>; };
> > > mtd4@920000 { label = "c_kernel"; reg = <0x00920000 0x003c0000>; };
> > > mtd5@ce0000 { label = "c__atags"; reg = <0x00ce0000 0x00020000>; };
> > > mtd6@d00000 { label = "c_rootfs"; reg = <0x00d00000 0x00300000>; };
> > > mtd7@1000000 { label = "mender"; reg = <0x01000000 0x1f000000>; };
> > > };
> > >
> > > which is why, I assume, I'm getting these messages. Is there a UBI-friendly
> > > way to define them to avoid these messages?
> > >
> >
> > I feel the messages are actually helping you. You should not have mtdblock
> > on any of these MTD devices, if I understood correctly, since you are not
> > mounting a filesystem on any of them.
> >
> > Just disable MTDBLOCK on your build and you will be good to go.
> >
> > I am inclined to just leave the warnings, although they look spammy,
> > precisely to help catch this mis-setups.
>
> I keep getting complaints about these messages because they are
> spawned several times in a boot (each device or partition, I don't
> recall) while mtdblock is not even used. I understand it would be best
> to have it disabled in this case but could we find a way to be less
> invasive?
>

If we still want to keep the warning, I suppose that moving these warnings
to blktrans_open should help ... unless the block device open ends
up being called anyway, and still gets spammy.

The alternative is removing them, perhaps adding a message to config MTD_BLOCK
about UBI blocks?

Thanks,
Ezequiel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-20 11:26    [W:0.075 / U:0.876 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site