[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] fastboot: sparse: fix block addressing for don't care chunk type

[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] fastboot: sparse: fix block addressing for don't care chunk type

[Steve Rae]

When 7bfc3b1 (sparse: Refactor chunk parsing function) was implemented,
it dropped 9981945 (aboot: fix block addressing for don't care chunk type).

This re-implements the required fix for the "don't care chunk type"...

Signed-off-by: Steve Rae <srae@broadcom.com>
---

 common/image-sparse.c | 10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/common/image-sparse.c b/common/image-sparse.c
index dffe844..f02aee4 100644
--- a/common/image-sparse.c
+++ b/common/image-sparse.c
@@ -330,9 +330,11 @@ int store_sparse_image(sparse_storage_t *storage, void *storage_priv,
 		 * and go on parsing the rest of the chunks
 		 */
 		if (chunk_header->chunk_type == CHUNK_TYPE_DONT_CARE) {
-			skipped += sparse_block_size_to_storage(chunk_header->chunk_sz,
-								storage,
-								sparse_header);
+			blkcnt = sparse_block_size_to_storage(chunk_header->chunk_sz,
+							      storage,
+							      sparse_header);
+			total_blocks += blkcnt;
+			skipped += blkcnt;
 			continue;
 		}
 
@@ -380,7 +382,7 @@ int store_sparse_image(sparse_storage_t *storage, void *storage_priv,
 	printf("........ wrote %d blocks to '%s'\n", total_blocks,
 	       storage->name);
 
-	if ((total_blocks + skipped) !=
+	if (total_blocks !=
 	    sparse_block_size_to_storage(sparse_header->total_blks,
 					 storage, sparse_header)) {
 		printf("sparse image write failure\n");
-- 
1.8.5

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

[Steve Rae]

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;
-			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,
 	      sparse_block_size_to_storage(sparse_header->total_blks,
 					   storage, sparse_header));
 	printf("........ wrote %d blocks to '%s'\n", total_blocks,
-- 
1.8.5

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

[Maxime Ripard]

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;
> -			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?

Do we really want to treat the DONT_CARE chunks as if they were
written?

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160204/08f4b982/attachment.sig>

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

[Steve Rae]

Hi Maxime,

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:20 AM, Maxime Ripard <
maxime.ripard@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!

(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] [PATCH 2/2] fastboot: sparse: remove unnecessary logging

[Maxime Ripard]

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

> > -                     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.

Ok, sounds good.

Thanks!
Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160208/bf45240b/attachment.sig>

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

[Steve Rae]

Hi Maxime,

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Maxime Ripard <
maxime.ripard@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

What do you think?
I can submit a "v2" -- Could you create a patch for the the NAND part?

Thanks in advance, Steve


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

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

[Maxime Ripard]

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

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160209/960a99f3/attachment.sig>

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

[Steve Rae]

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
>

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

[Maxime Ripard]

On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 09:58:10AM -0800, Steve Rae wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> Yes - it is broken now -- there is no "write function" in this
> CHUNK_TYPE_DONT_CARE logic....

Ah, yes, in the case where the block we skip is bad, and we should
skip yet another block.

Jeffy also had an issue with the session_id that required to honour
DONT_CARE to handle the case where you chain fastboot commands as part
of one sessions. It should probably fix this issue as well.

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20160209/2dc545c2/attachment.sig>

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

[Steve Rae]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Maxime Ripard <
maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 09:58:10AM -0800, Steve Rae wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > >
> > Yes - it is broken now -- there is no "write function" in this
> > CHUNK_TYPE_DONT_CARE logic....
>
> Ah, yes, in the case where the block we skip is bad, and we should
> skip yet another block.
>
> Jeffy also had an issue with the session_id that required to honour
> DONT_CARE to handle the case where you chain fastboot commands as part
> of one sessions. It should probably fix this issue as well.
>
> yes -- I see this patch from jeffy (on Feb 2)
    fastboot: sparse: fix chunk write offset calculation
I haven't tested it, but it seems to ignore the "session_id" completely,
and write each session, starting from "storage->start"...
And since his "wrote_blocks" starts at 0 for each session, I don't think
that is what we want....
Thanks, Steve
PS. I have submitted a "v2" !!!

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