[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] fastboot: sparse: remove unnecessary logging

[Steve Rae <steve.rae@broadcom.com>]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Maxime Ripard <
maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:04:03AM -0800, Steve Rae wrote:
> > Hi Maxime,
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Maxime Ripard <
> > maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Steve,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 10:51:00AM -0800, Steve Rae wrote:
> > > > Hi Maxime,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:20 AM, Maxime Ripard <
> > > > maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com> 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 <srae@broadcom.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  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!
> > >
> > > Ah, yeah, understood.
> > >
> > > I'm guessing it was working in my case since I had no DONT_CARE chunks
> > > in the first sparse image sent, and then only DONT_CARE chunks for the
> > > space you already wrote, we got that covered by last_offset... :/
> > >
> > > So, yeah, it's broken...
> > >
> > > > (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....)
> > >
> > > Yes, if you try to write to a bad block on NAND, you're actually going
> > > to write to the next block, which will introduce some offset, or
> > > you'll going to write to a block that's already been written.
> > >
> > > Maxime
> > >
> > >
> > So, to handle MMC versus NAND, I propose that we follow the same method
> > used throughout 'fastboot':
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_MMC_DEV
> >                         total_blocks += blkcnt;
> > +#endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_NAND_DEV
> > +                       /* TBD */
> > +#endif
>
> Eventually, we should support both. But is it even broken now? It was
> working just fine last time I tried. The write function is supposed to
> return the adjusted number of blocks that the write actually used (bad
> blocks included). Am I missing something?
>
> Maxime
>
> Yes - it is broken now -- there is no "write function" in this CHUNK_TYPE_DONT_CARE
logic....
It is simply updating the total_blocks value, so that the start position
for the "next" CHUNK is at the correct location....
Thanks, Steve

> --
> Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
> Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
> http://free-electrons.com
>