From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:32:33 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] gpmi-nand driver and jffs2 support In-Reply-To: <5224670F.6000703@freescale.com> References: <522062B4.4080709@digi.com> <52246421.1020900@digi.com> <5224670F.6000703@freescale.com> Message-ID: <201309021332.34063.marex@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Dear Huang Shijie, > ? 2013?09?02? 18:10, Hector Palacios ??: > > So does this mean that U-Boot is now unable to properly write a JFFS2 > > partition for it to be understood by the linux-next > > For the gpmi nand controller, the uboot is not proper to write a jffs2 now. > > > kernel? What is exactly the difference? Does it only affect Freescale > > NAND controllers? > > I think there are many difference. Just diff the nand_base.c, you can > see there are many patches merged in > the kernel's mtd code, but not exit in the uboot's mtd code. This makes not much sense to me. If what you claim is true, than JFFS2 in U-Boot and Linux would be incompatible for all MTD drivers. This would also mean that JFFS2 in Linux 3.7 is incompatible with Linux-next (since 3.7 was the last sync point between U-Boot and Linux MTD). Is that really the case? Best regards, Marek Vasut From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1VGSNP-0005Uh-8Y for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 11:33:00 +0000 From: Marek Vasut To: Huang Shijie Subject: Re: gpmi-nand driver and jffs2 support Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 13:32:33 +0200 References: <522062B4.4080709@digi.com> <52246421.1020900@digi.com> <5224670F.6000703@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: <5224670F.6000703@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201309021332.34063.marex@denx.de> Cc: "fabio.estevam@freescale.com" , Huang Shijie , "u-boot@lists.denx.de" , Hector Palacios , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , scottwood@freescale.com, Fabio Estevam List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Dear Huang Shijie, > =E4=BA=8E 2013=E5=B9=B409=E6=9C=8802=E6=97=A5 18:10, Hector Palacios =E5= =86=99=E9=81=93: > > So does this mean that U-Boot is now unable to properly write a JFFS2 > > partition for it to be understood by the linux-next >=20 > For the gpmi nand controller, the uboot is not proper to write a jffs2 no= w. >=20 > > kernel? What is exactly the difference? Does it only affect Freescale > > NAND controllers? >=20 > I think there are many difference. Just diff the nand_base.c, you can > see there are many patches merged in > the kernel's mtd code, but not exit in the uboot's mtd code. This makes not much sense to me. If what you claim is true, than JFFS2 in U= =2DBoot=20 and Linux would be incompatible for all MTD drivers. This would also mean t= hat=20 JFFS2 in Linux 3.7 is incompatible with Linux-next (since 3.7 was the last = sync=20 point between U-Boot and Linux MTD). Is that really the case? Best regards, Marek Vasut