[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.

This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.

If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
the we have two cases:

Case 1:
Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!

Case 2:
The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!

This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
  before the read of two next

The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
which works good as previous.

Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov <lebon@lebon.org.ua>
Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Cc: Suriyan Ramasami <suriyan.r@gmail.com>
Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
---
 fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c
index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644
--- a/fs/fat/fat.c
+++ b/fs/fat/fat.c
@@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 	int ret = -1;
 	int firsttime;
 	__u32 root_cluster = 0;
+	__u32 read_blk;
 	int rootdir_size = 0;
-	int j;
+	int j, k;
+	int do_read;
+	__u8 *dir_ptr;
 
 	if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) {
 		debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");
@@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 	}
 
 	j = 0;
+	k = 0;
 	while (1) {
 		int i;
 
-		if (j == 0) {
+		if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) {
+			dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;
+			k = 1;
+		} else {
+			dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block + mydata->sect_size);
+			memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr, mydata->sect_size);
+		}
+
+		do_read = 1;
+
+		if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j)
+			do_read = 0;
+
+		if (do_read) {
 			debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n",
 				cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
 
-			if (disk_read(cursect,
-					(mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
-					(mydata->clust_size) :
-					PREFETCH_BLOCKS,
-					do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
+			read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
+				    mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;
+			if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) {
 				debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n");
 				goto exit;
 			}
 
-			dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
+			dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr;
 		}
 
 		for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {
@@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 
 					get_vfatname(mydata,
 						     root_cluster,
-						     do_fat_read_at_block,
+						     dir_ptr,
 						     dentptr, l_name);
 
 					if (dols == LS_ROOT) {
-- 
1.9.1

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Simon Glass]

Hi Przemyslaw,

On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>
> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>
> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>
> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
> the we have two cases:
>
> Case 1:
> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
> for long file name is in the buffer.
> - Read OK!
>
> Case 2:
> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
> - Read fail!
>
> This commit fixes this issue by:
> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>   before the read of two next
>
> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
> which works good as previous.


This is very interesting\! Is this the same failure that I saw on this thread?

http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revision-td196720.html

(search for fatload)

"I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the
device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.

Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try
from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the
file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what
year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "


Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?

Regards,
Simon

[snip]

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

Hello,

On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Przemyslaw,
>
> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>>
>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>
>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>
>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>> the we have two cases:
>>
>> Case 1:
>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>> - Read OK!
>>
>> Case 2:
>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>> - Read fail!
>>
>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>    before the read of two next
>>
>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>> which works good as previous.
>
>
> This is very interesting\! Is this the same failure that I saw on this thread?
>
> http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revision-td196720.html
>
> (search for fatload)
>
> "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the
> device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
>
> Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try
> from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the
> file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what
> year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
>
>
> Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> [snip]
>

Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer bug.
Does this patch fixed your issue?

I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool.
It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using 
the UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next 
using U-Boot fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But 
it's not full automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot 
console.

So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were 
found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for 
the "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox.
My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo 
"some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.

Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.

The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change 
fat directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read 
right.

I will send the scripts for such simple test.

Best regards,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fat: scripts for prepare and test read fat files

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

---------------------------------------------------------
mktest_files: script for generating random size long name files
---------------------------------------------------------
Usage:
./1_mktest_files.sh count

count - number of files to be generated

The output directory is: "./test_files"

---------------------------------------------------------
copy_files: copy the test_files/* into test partition mount point
---------------------------------------------------------
Usage:
./2_copy_files.sh mount_point

-----------------------------------------------------------
fat_test.sh: test fat read by write commands to the device console
----------------------------------------------------------
This script send commands to U-Boot console.
First specify few script variables, e.g:
- TTY="/dev/ttyS0"
- MMCDEV=0
- PARTITION=2
- LOAD_ADDR="0x40000000"

usage:
1. Target:
   run: ums 0 mmc 0
2. Run script 1 and 2 to make and copy the test files
   onto the test partition by UMS
3. This script:
   - set test device $PARTITION and other variables in the script,
     which is required for sending proper commands
   - set $TTY in the script
   run: ./3_fat_test.sh
4. Compare the crc results on the target and device consoles
   (sorry for the mess on the console)

Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
---
 1_mktest_files.sh | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2_copy_files.sh   | 20 ++++++++++++++
 3_fat_test.sh     | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 140 insertions(+)
 create mode 100755 1_mktest_files.sh
 create mode 100755 2_copy_files.sh
 create mode 100755 3_fat_test.sh

diff --git a/1_mktest_files.sh b/1_mktest_files.sh
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..e9f4e26
--- /dev/null
+++ b/1_mktest_files.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+#
+# Copyright (C) 2014 Samsung Electronics
+# Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
+#
+# SPDX-License-Identifier:	GPL-2.0+
+#
+
+F_CNT=${1}
+OUT_DIR="./test_files"
+# File max: 100k
+f_max_size=255
+
+# Minimal len of long name -> len+"xxxk.bin"
+LONG_NAME_LEN=20
+
+if [ ${#1} -eq 0 ]
+	then
+	echo "Bad arg!"
+	echo "usage:"
+	echo "./mktest_files.sh count"
+	exit
+else
+	if [ -d $OUT_DIR ]
+		then
+		echo "Directory: \"$OUT_DIR\" exists - cleanup"
+		rm $OUT_DIR/*
+	else
+		echo "Test files directory: \"$OUT_DIR\""
+		mkdir $OUT_DIR
+	fi
+	echo "Generating $1 files:"
+fi
+
+######
+# 1. # Generate random size for the files
+######
+
+i=0
+for val in `rand -M $f_max_size -N $F_CNT -u`
+	do
+	f_size_list[$i]=$val
+#	echo "Size[$i]: ${f_size_list[$i]}"
+	i=$(($i+1))
+done
+
+######
+# 2. #  Prepare the long name
+######
+CHAR="_"
+
+for I in `seq 1 1 $LONG_NAME_LEN`; do
+	LONG_NAME="$LONG_NAME""$CHAR"
+done
+
+######
+# 3. # Generate files with random data
+######
+i=0
+# Set fat16 file extension (dot + 3 characters)
+EXT=".bin"
+for len_k in ${f_size_list[@]}
+	do
+
+	prefix="$len_k""k"
+
+	prefix_len=${#prefix}
+	long_name_len=${#LONG_NAME}
+	ext_len=${#EXT}
+	name=`echo "$prefix""$LONG_NAME" | head -c $long_name_len`
+	name=$name$EXT
+#	echo Name: $name len: ${#name}
+
+	echo "$i Prefix: $prefix name len: ${#name} chars:"
+	full_name="$OUT_DIR/$name"
+
+	echo "$full_name"
+
+	dd if=/dev/urandom of=${full_name} bs=1k count=$len_k 2>/dev/null
+
+	i=$(($i+1))
+done
diff --git a/2_copy_files.sh b/2_copy_files.sh
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..6bfefc6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2_copy_files.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+#!/bin/bash
+#
+# Copyright (C) 2014 Samsung Electronics
+# Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
+#
+# SPDX-License-Identifier:	GPL-2.0+
+#
+
+#MOUNT_POINT - for the fat16 partition,
+#              e.g. target partition using ums command
+
+MOUNT_POINT=$1
+DIR="test_files"
+
+for I in `ls -1 -S $DIR/`; do
+	echo Copying "$DIR/$I" to $DEV
+	cp "$DIR/$I" $MOUNT_POINT
+done
+
+sync
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/3_fat_test.sh b/3_fat_test.sh
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..07222a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/3_fat_test.sh
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+#!/bin/sh
+#
+# Copyright (C) 2014 Samsung Electronics
+# Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
+#
+# SPDX-License-Identifier:	GPL-2.0+
+#
+
+TTY="/dev/ttyS0"
+MMCDEV=0
+PARTITION=2
+LOAD_ADDR="0x40000000"
+
+DIR="test_files"
+
+SPACE="_____________________________ "
+CMD_1_2="setenv t \"fatload mmc $MMCDEV:$PARTITION $LOAD_ADDR '\$F';"
+CMD_2_2="echo $SPACE File: '\$F'; crc $LOAD_ADDR '\$S'\""
+CMD="$CMD_1_2""$CMD_2_2"
+
+# Set command for loading DIR
+echo "$CMD" > $TTY
+
+for I in `ls -1 -S $DIR`;
+	do
+	FILE="$DIR"/"$I"
+	# Hex size:
+	SIZE=`ls -l $FILE | awk '{printf("%#x\n", $5)}'`
+	CRC=`crc32 $FILE`
+
+	echo
+	echo "File: $I"
+	echo "  ==> $CRC"
+
+	CMD="setenv F \'$I\'; setenv S $SIZE; run t;"
+	echo "echo" > $TTY
+	echo $CMD > $TTY
+done
-- 
1.9.1

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fat: scripts for prepare and test read fat files

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

Hello,

On 12/12/2014 04:52 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> mktest_files: script for generating random size long name files
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Usage:
> ./1_mktest_files.sh count
>
> count - number of files to be generated
>
> The output directory is: "./test_files"
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> copy_files: copy the test_files/* into test partition mount point
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Usage:
> ./2_copy_files.sh mount_point
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> fat_test.sh: test fat read by write commands to the device console
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> This script send commands to U-Boot console.
> First specify few script variables, e.g:
> - TTY="/dev/ttyS0"
> - MMCDEV=0
> - PARTITION=2
> - LOAD_ADDR="0x40000000"
>
> usage:
> 1. Target:
>     run: ums 0 mmc 0
> 2. Run script 1 and 2 to make and copy the test files
>     onto the test partition by UMS
> 3. This script:
>     - set test device $PARTITION and other variables in the script,
>       which is required for sending proper commands
>     - set $TTY in the script
>     run: ./3_fat_test.sh
> 4. Compare the crc results on the target and device consoles
>     (sorry for the mess on the console)
>
> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
> ---
>   1_mktest_files.sh | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   2_copy_files.sh   | 20 ++++++++++++++
>   3_fat_test.sh     | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   3 files changed, 140 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100755 1_mktest_files.sh
>   create mode 100755 2_copy_files.sh
>   create mode 100755 3_fat_test.sh
>

This is just for some quick test.
I will add something more pretty to the sandbox.

Best regards,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fat: scripts for prepare and test read fat files

[Simon Glass]

Hi Przemyslaw,

On 12 December 2014 at 08:54, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
> On 12/12/2014 04:52 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> mktest_files: script for generating random size long name files
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Usage:
>> ./1_mktest_files.sh count
>>
>> count - number of files to be generated
>>
>> The output directory is: "./test_files"
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> copy_files: copy the test_files/* into test partition mount point
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> Usage:
>> ./2_copy_files.sh mount_point
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> fat_test.sh: test fat read by write commands to the device console
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> This script send commands to U-Boot console.
>> First specify few script variables, e.g:
>> - TTY="/dev/ttyS0"
>> - MMCDEV=0
>> - PARTITION=2
>> - LOAD_ADDR="0x40000000"
>>
>> usage:
>> 1. Target:
>>     run: ums 0 mmc 0
>> 2. Run script 1 and 2 to make and copy the test files
>>     onto the test partition by UMS
>> 3. This script:
>>     - set test device $PARTITION and other variables in the script,
>>       which is required for sending proper commands
>>     - set $TTY in the script
>>     run: ./3_fat_test.sh
>> 4. Compare the crc results on the target and device consoles
>>     (sorry for the mess on the console)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>> ---
>>   1_mktest_files.sh | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   2_copy_files.sh   | 20 ++++++++++++++
>>   3_fat_test.sh     | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   3 files changed, 140 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100755 1_mktest_files.sh
>>   create mode 100755 2_copy_files.sh
>>   create mode 100755 3_fat_test.sh
>>
>
> This is just for some quick test.
> I will add something more pretty to the sandbox.

Perhaps this should be written in Python? We now have quite a few
tests and it's getting to the point where we might want to have a way
to run them all, check results, etc. That would be easier if we could
import them through some standard interface. For now, perhaps we
should avoid shell scripts except for really trivial things.

You can bring in the patman libraries (we could break these out into
another dir but it doesn't seem important):

import os
import sys

# Bring in the patman libraries
our_path = os.path.dirname(os.path.realpath(__file__))
sys.path.append(os.path.join(our_path, 'tools/patman'))

import command

The, for example:
print command.Output('ls', '-l')

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Simon Glass]

Hi Przemyslaw,

On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>
>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>
>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>
>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>> the we have two cases:
>>>
>>> Case 1:
>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>> - Read OK!
>>>
>>> Case 2:
>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>> - Read fail!
>>>
>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>    before the read of two next
>>>
>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>> which works good as previous.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is very interesting\! Is this the same failure that I saw on this
>> thread?
>>
>>
>> http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revision-td196720.html
>>
>> (search for fatload)
>>
>> "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the
>> device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
>>
>> Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try
>> from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the
>> file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what
>> year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
>>
>>
>> Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Simon
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
> Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer bug.
> Does this patch fixed your issue?
>
> I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool.
> It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using the
> UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using U-Boot
> fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full
> automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
>
> So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were
> found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for the
> "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox.
> My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo
> "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
>
> Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
>
> The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change fat
> directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read right.
>
> I will send the scripts for such simple test.

I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if
I can make time to test it.

If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that
fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function
there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from
U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fat: scripts for prepare and test read fat files

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

Hello Simon,

On 12/16/2014 09:41 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Przemyslaw,
>
> On 12 December 2014 at 08:54, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> On 12/12/2014 04:52 PM, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>> mktest_files: script for generating random size long name files
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>> Usage:
>>> ./1_mktest_files.sh count
>>>
>>> count - number of files to be generated
>>>
>>> The output directory is: "./test_files"
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>> copy_files: copy the test_files/* into test partition mount point
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>> Usage:
>>> ./2_copy_files.sh mount_point
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>> fat_test.sh: test fat read by write commands to the device console
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> This script send commands to U-Boot console.
>>> First specify few script variables, e.g:
>>> - TTY="/dev/ttyS0"
>>> - MMCDEV=0
>>> - PARTITION=2
>>> - LOAD_ADDR="0x40000000"
>>>
>>> usage:
>>> 1. Target:
>>>      run: ums 0 mmc 0
>>> 2. Run script 1 and 2 to make and copy the test files
>>>      onto the test partition by UMS
>>> 3. This script:
>>>      - set test device $PARTITION and other variables in the script,
>>>        which is required for sending proper commands
>>>      - set $TTY in the script
>>>      run: ./3_fat_test.sh
>>> 4. Compare the crc results on the target and device consoles
>>>      (sorry for the mess on the console)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>>    1_mktest_files.sh | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    2_copy_files.sh   | 20 ++++++++++++++
>>>    3_fat_test.sh     | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    3 files changed, 140 insertions(+)
>>>    create mode 100755 1_mktest_files.sh
>>>    create mode 100755 2_copy_files.sh
>>>    create mode 100755 3_fat_test.sh
>>>
>>
>> This is just for some quick test.
>> I will add something more pretty to the sandbox.
>
> Perhaps this should be written in Python? We now have quite a few
> tests and it's getting to the point where we might want to have a way
> to run them all, check results, etc. That would be easier if we could
> import them through some standard interface. For now, perhaps we
> should avoid shell scripts except for really trivial things.
>
> You can bring in the patman libraries (we could break these out into
> another dir but it doesn't seem important):
>
> import os
> import sys
>
> # Bring in the patman libraries
> our_path = os.path.dirname(os.path.realpath(__file__))
> sys.path.append(os.path.join(our_path, 'tools/patman'))
>
> import command
>
> The, for example:
> print command.Output('ls', '-l')
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>

The patch fixes the issue with the "hidden" files, so for looking the 
issue on some other cases I made some simple script. I understand that 
this is not good for a U-Boot tests, and I agree that better is to write 
something automated in the Python for the sandbox.
I think that the fix should be merged.
I can write the test for the sandbox in a free time, but it will take a 
moment, because now I would like to focus on the pmic framework.
The pmic was on hold for too long.

Best regards,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

Hello,

On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Przemyslaw,
>
> On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>
>>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>>
>>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>>
>>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>>> the we have two cases:
>>>>
>>>> Case 1:
>>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>>> - Read OK!
>>>>
>>>> Case 2:
>>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>>> - Read fail!
>>>>
>>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>>     before the read of two next
>>>>
>>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>>> which works good as previous.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is very interesting\! Is this the same failure that I saw on this
>>> thread?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revision-td196720.html
>>>
>>> (search for fatload)
>>>
>>> "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the
>>> device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
>>>
>>> Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try
>>> from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the
>>> file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what
>>> year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
>>>
>>>
>>> Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>
>> Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer bug.
>> Does this patch fixed your issue?
>>
>> I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool.
>> It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using the
>> UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using U-Boot
>> fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full
>> automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
>>
>> So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were
>> found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for the
>> "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox.
>> My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo
>> "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
>>
>> Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
>>
>> The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change fat
>> directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read right.
>>
>> I will send the scripts for such simple test.
>
> I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if
> I can make time to test it.
>
> If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that
> fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function
> there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from
> U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>

It sounds good. I can do that, as I wrote in my previous message, now 
I'm focused on the pmic, and this will be a side task for a break time.
I will look into the present tests and I think, that I will find an 
example there.

Best regards,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

Hello,

On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Przemyslaw,
>
> On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>
>>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>>
>>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>>
>>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>>> the we have two cases:
>>>>
>>>> Case 1:
>>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>>> - Read OK!
>>>>
>>>> Case 2:
>>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>>> - Read fail!
>>>>
>>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>>     before the read of two next
>>>>
>>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>>> which works good as previous.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is very interesting\! Is this the same failure that I saw on this
>>> thread?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revision-td196720.html
>>>
>>> (search for fatload)
>>>
>>> "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the
>>> device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
>>>
>>> Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try
>>> from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the
>>> file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what
>>> year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
>>>
>>>
>>> Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Simon
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>
>> Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer bug.
>> Does this patch fixed your issue?
>>
>> I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool.
>> It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using the
>> UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using U-Boot
>> fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full
>> automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
>>
>> So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were
>> found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for the
>> "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox.
>> My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo
>> "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
>>
>> Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
>>
>> The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change fat
>> directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read right.
>>
>> I will send the scripts for such simple test.
>
> I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if
> I can make time to test it.
>
> If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that
> fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function
> there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from
> U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>

Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it 
was just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.

Best regards,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Simon Glass]

Hi Przemyslaw,

On 17 December 2014 at 02:03, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>
>> On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>>
>>>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>>>
>>>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>>>> the we have two cases:
>>>>>
>>>>> Case 1:
>>>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>>>> - Read OK!
>>>>>
>>>>> Case 2:
>>>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>>>> - Read fail!
>>>>>
>>>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>>>     before the read of two next
>>>>>
>>>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>>>> which works good as previous.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is very interesting\! Is this the same failure that I saw on this
>>>> thread?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revision-td196720.html
>>>>
>>>> (search for fatload)
>>>>
>>>> "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the
>>>> device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
>>>>
>>>> Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try
>>>> from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the
>>>> file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what
>>>> year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>
>>> Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer
>>> bug.
>>> Does this patch fixed your issue?
>>>
>>> I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool.
>>> It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using
>>> the
>>> UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using
>>> U-Boot
>>> fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full
>>> automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
>>>
>>> So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were
>>> found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for
>>> the
>>> "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox.
>>> My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo
>>> "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
>>>
>>> The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change
>>> fat
>>> directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read
>>> right.
>>>
>>> I will send the scripts for such simple test.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if
>> I can make time to test it.
>>
>> If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that
>> fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function
>> there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from
>> U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Simon
>>
>
> Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it was
> just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.

Somewhat bewildering, but it does not in fact fix my problem.

Here is a compressed version of the fat filesystem if you want to take a look:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7WYZbZ9zd-3NGRMNkFQQTdtV2M/view?usp=sharing

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

Hello Simon,

On 12/18/2014 04:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Przemyslaw,
>
> On 17 December 2014 at 02:03, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>
>>> On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>>>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>>>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>>>>> the we have two cases:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Case 1:
>>>>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>>>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>>>>> - Read OK!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Case 2:
>>>>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>>>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>>>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>>>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>>>>> - Read fail!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>>>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>>>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>>>>      before the read of two next
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>>>>> which works good as previous.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is very interesting\! Is this the same failure that I saw on this
>>>>> thread?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revision-td196720.html
>>>>>
>>>>> (search for fatload)
>>>>>
>>>>> "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the
>>>>> device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try
>>>>> from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the
>>>>> file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what
>>>>> year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer
>>>> bug.
>>>> Does this patch fixed your issue?
>>>>
>>>> I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool.
>>>> It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using
>>>> the
>>>> UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using
>>>> U-Boot
>>>> fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full
>>>> automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
>>>>
>>>> So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were
>>>> found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for
>>>> the
>>>> "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox.
>>>> My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this: echo
>>>> "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
>>>>
>>>> The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change
>>>> fat
>>>> directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read
>>>> right.
>>>>
>>>> I will send the scripts for such simple test.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if
>>> I can make time to test it.
>>>
>>> If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that
>>> fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function
>>> there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from
>>> U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it was
>> just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.
>
> Somewhat bewildering, but it does not in fact fix my problem.
>
> Here is a compressed version of the fat filesystem if you want to take a look:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7WYZbZ9zd-3NGRMNkFQQTdtV2M/view?usp=sharing
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>

I had put this image on my Trats2 device on partition mmc 0:6 using ums 
and dd linux command. Next I put latest mainline u-boot, commit: 
e3bf81b1e841ecabe7c8b3d48621256db8b8623e : "Merge branch 'master' of 
git://git.denx.de/u-boot-mpc85xx"

So this is the version with the fat bug. But I can see and load the 
file: "bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb".

Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
     17840   bootcode.bin
       120   cmdline.txt
      1331   config.txt
      6115   fixup.dat
      2324   fixup_cd.dat
      9166   fixup_x.dat
   3232856   kernel.img
   2615064   start.elf
    533080   start_cd.elf
   3572200   start_x.elf
       137   issue.txt
     18974   license.oracle
    295524   u-boot.bin
      1331   config.txt~
             extlinux/
   3368648   zimage
      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
      3963   bcm2835.dtb
      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb

18 file(s), 1 dir(s)

Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s)
Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b
CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db
Trats2 #

The only missing file is "boot.scr", it's ignored by "ls" command but 
can be loaded...

Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  boot.scr
reading boot.scr
256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s)
Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100
CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3

I suppose that the partition image which you shared for me is little 
different, than this mentioned in the topic "[PATCH U-Boot] ARM: rpi_b: 
detect board revision"

Probably the sequence of writing files to this partition was different, 
and the different file is ignored.

After putting the debug macro on the top of fs/fat/fat.c:

Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
VFAT Support enabled
FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32
Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000
Data begins at: 80
Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16
FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
     17840   bootcode.bin
       120   cmdline.txt
      1331   config.txt
      6115   fixup.dat
      2324   fixup_cd.dat
      9166   fixup_x.dat
   3232856   kernel.img
   2615064   start.elf
END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
    533080   start_cd.elf
   3572200   start_x.elf
       137   issue.txt
     18974   license.oracle
    295524   u-boot.bin
      1331   config.txt~
END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
             extlinux/
   3368648   zimage
      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
      3963   bcm2835.dtb
      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
RootDentname == NULL - 0

18 file(s), 1 dir(s)

And next test on commit 9b416a9f4ca7cf5ac4d5f7143d67edde7f7d7326 with my 
fat patch.

Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
     17840   bootcode.bin
       120   cmdline.txt
      1331   config.txt
      6115   fixup.dat
      2324   fixup_cd.dat
      9166   fixup_x.dat
   3232856   kernel.img
   2615064   start.elf
    533080   start_cd.elf
   3572200   start_x.elf
       137   issue.txt
     18974   license.oracle
    295524   u-boot.bin
      1331   config.txt~
       256   boot.scr
             extlinux/
   3368648   zimage
      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
      3963   bcm2835.dtb
      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb

19 file(s), 1 dir(s)

Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s)
Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b
CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db
Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  boot.scr
reading boot.scr
256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s)
Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100
CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3

So the only difference on this image is, that with my patch, the file 
"boot.scr" ignored by ls command is now visible - but in both cases it 
can be loaded into memory and the crc is correct.

After enabling the debug:

Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
VFAT Support enabled
FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32
Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000
Data begins at: 80
Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16
FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
     17840   bootcode.bin
       120   cmdline.txt
      1331   config.txt
      6115   fixup.dat
      2324   fixup_cd.dat
      9166   fixup_x.dat
   3232856   kernel.img
   2615064   start.elf
END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
FAT read sect=81, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
    533080   start_cd.elf
   3572200   start_x.elf
       137   issue.txt
     18974   license.oracle
    295524   u-boot.bin
      1331   config.txt~
       256   boot.scr
END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
             extlinux/
   3368648   zimage
      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
      3963   bcm2835.dtb
      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
FAT read sect=83, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
RootDentname == NULL - 0

19 file(s), 1 dir(s)

So as I checked the file:
256   boot.scr
is next behind to the:
1331   config.txt~

And this can be checked with hex dump:
hd -s 0xa400 -n 512  bad-fat.dd

Your fat image is good example of what my patch fixes.

As you can see on the simple debug info, without the fix,the sector 80 
and 81 is stored in the buffer (there are always 2 sectors in the 
buffer). If you see the hex dump of the second sector:

hd -s 0xa200 -n 512  bad-fat.dd

You will see that at the end of this sector, there is a long name entry 
for file "boot.scr".

In the next loop (without the fix):
END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
             extlinux/
the sector 82 and 83 is loaded in to the buffer, so the long name entry 
of "boot.scr" file from the end of sector 81 is now in the heaven, and 
the file will be ignored by the ls command.

The sector 82 can be checked by:
hd -s 0xa400 -n 512  bad-fat.dd

It begins with the short name entry of file "boot.scr".

After applying my fix, there are always three sectors in the buffer, 
because the last one is moved into the buffer begin and two next are 
loaded into the buffer next to the last one.
And the buffer pointer is always on the second buffered sector beside 
first loop.

So I think this patch fixes the issue well.

Could you describe your issue more precisely?

Best regards,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Simon Glass]

Hi Przemyslaw,

On 18 December 2014 at 03:26, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hello Simon,
>
>
> On 12/18/2014 04:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>
>> On 17 December 2014 at 02:03, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>>
>>>> On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak
>>>>>> <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>>>>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>>>>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>>>>>> the we have two cases:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Case 1:
>>>>>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>>>>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>>>>>> - Read OK!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Case 2:
>>>>>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>>>>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>>>>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>>>>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>>>>>> - Read fail!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>>>>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>>>>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>>>>>      before the read of two next
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>>>>>> which works good as previous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is very interesting\! Is this the same failure that I saw on this
>>>>>> thread?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revision-td196720.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (search for fatload)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the
>>>>>> device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try
>>>>>> from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the
>>>>>> file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what
>>>>>> year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer
>>>>> bug.
>>>>> Does this patch fixed your issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool.
>>>>> It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using
>>>>> the
>>>>> UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using
>>>>> U-Boot
>>>>> fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full
>>>>> automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were
>>>>> found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for
>>>>> the
>>>>> "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox.
>>>>> My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this:
>>>>> echo
>>>>> "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change
>>>>> fat
>>>>> directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read
>>>>> right.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will send the scripts for such simple test.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if
>>>> I can make time to test it.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that
>>>> fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function
>>>> there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from
>>>> U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>
>>> Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it was
>>> just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.
>>
>>
>> Somewhat bewildering, but it does not in fact fix my problem.
>>
>> Here is a compressed version of the fat filesystem if you want to take a
>> look:
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7WYZbZ9zd-3NGRMNkFQQTdtV2M/view?usp=sharing
>>
>> Regards,
>> Simon
>>
>
> I had put this image on my Trats2 device on partition mmc 0:6 using ums and
> dd linux command. Next I put latest mainline u-boot, commit:
> e3bf81b1e841ecabe7c8b3d48621256db8b8623e : "Merge branch 'master' of
> git://git.denx.de/u-boot-mpc85xx"
>
> So this is the version with the fat bug. But I can see and load the file:
> "bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb".
>
> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>     17840   bootcode.bin
>       120   cmdline.txt
>      1331   config.txt
>      6115   fixup.dat
>      2324   fixup_cd.dat
>      9166   fixup_x.dat
>   3232856   kernel.img
>   2615064   start.elf
>    533080   start_cd.elf
>   3572200   start_x.elf
>       137   issue.txt
>     18974   license.oracle
>    295524   u-boot.bin
>      1331   config.txt~
>             extlinux/
>   3368648   zimage
>      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>      3963   bcm2835.dtb
>      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>
> 18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>
> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
> reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
> 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s)
> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b
> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db
> Trats2 #
>
> The only missing file is "boot.scr", it's ignored by "ls" command but can be
> loaded...
>
> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  boot.scr
> reading boot.scr
> 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s)
> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100
> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
>
> I suppose that the partition image which you shared for me is little
> different, than this mentioned in the topic "[PATCH U-Boot] ARM: rpi_b:
> detect board revision"
>
> Probably the sequence of writing files to this partition was different, and
> the different file is ignored.
>
> After putting the debug macro on the top of fs/fat/fat.c:
>
> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
> VFAT Support enabled
> FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32
> Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000
> Data begins at: 80
> Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16
> FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>     17840   bootcode.bin
>       120   cmdline.txt
>      1331   config.txt
>      6115   fixup.dat
>      2324   fixup_cd.dat
>      9166   fixup_x.dat
>   3232856   kernel.img
>   2615064   start.elf
> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>    533080   start_cd.elf
>   3572200   start_x.elf
>       137   issue.txt
>     18974   license.oracle
>    295524   u-boot.bin
>      1331   config.txt~
> END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
> FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>             extlinux/
>   3368648   zimage
>      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>      3963   bcm2835.dtb
>      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
> RootDentname == NULL - 0
>
> 18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>
> And next test on commit 9b416a9f4ca7cf5ac4d5f7143d67edde7f7d7326 with my fat
> patch.
>
> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>     17840   bootcode.bin
>       120   cmdline.txt
>      1331   config.txt
>      6115   fixup.dat
>      2324   fixup_cd.dat
>      9166   fixup_x.dat
>   3232856   kernel.img
>   2615064   start.elf
>    533080   start_cd.elf
>   3572200   start_x.elf
>       137   issue.txt
>     18974   license.oracle
>    295524   u-boot.bin
>      1331   config.txt~
>       256   boot.scr
>             extlinux/
>   3368648   zimage
>      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>      3963   bcm2835.dtb
>      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>
> 19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>
> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
> reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
> 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s)
> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b
> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db
> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  boot.scr
> reading boot.scr
> 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s)
> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100
> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
>
> So the only difference on this image is, that with my patch, the file
> "boot.scr" ignored by ls command is now visible - but in both cases it can
> be loaded into memory and the crc is correct.
>
> After enabling the debug:
>
> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
> VFAT Support enabled
> FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32
> Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000
> Data begins at: 80
> Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16
> FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>     17840   bootcode.bin
>       120   cmdline.txt
>      1331   config.txt
>      6115   fixup.dat
>      2324   fixup_cd.dat
>      9166   fixup_x.dat
>   3232856   kernel.img
>   2615064   start.elf
> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
> FAT read sect=81, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>    533080   start_cd.elf
>   3572200   start_x.elf
>       137   issue.txt
>     18974   license.oracle
>    295524   u-boot.bin
>      1331   config.txt~
>       256   boot.scr
> END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
> FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>             extlinux/
>   3368648   zimage
>      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>      3963   bcm2835.dtb
>      3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
> FAT read sect=83, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
> RootDentname == NULL - 0
>
> 19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>
> So as I checked the file:
> 256   boot.scr
> is next behind to the:
> 1331   config.txt~
>
> And this can be checked with hex dump:
> hd -s 0xa400 -n 512  bad-fat.dd
>
> Your fat image is good example of what my patch fixes.
>
> As you can see on the simple debug info, without the fix,the sector 80 and
> 81 is stored in the buffer (there are always 2 sectors in the buffer). If
> you see the hex dump of the second sector:
>
> hd -s 0xa200 -n 512  bad-fat.dd
>
> You will see that at the end of this sector, there is a long name entry for
> file "boot.scr".
>
> In the next loop (without the fix):
> END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
> FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>             extlinux/
> the sector 82 and 83 is loaded in to the buffer, so the long name entry of
> "boot.scr" file from the end of sector 81 is now in the heaven, and the file
> will be ignored by the ls command.
>
> The sector 82 can be checked by:
> hd -s 0xa400 -n 512  bad-fat.dd
>
> It begins with the short name entry of file "boot.scr".
>
> After applying my fix, there are always three sectors in the buffer, because
> the last one is moved into the buffer begin and two next are loaded into the
> buffer next to the last one.
> And the buffer pointer is always on the second buffered sector beside first
> loop.
>
> So I think this patch fixes the issue well.
>
> Could you describe your issue more precisely?

I think you left out the path. The file I tried to load was:

 /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb

It works OK without the path on the front.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

Hello,

On 12/18/2014 02:14 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Przemyslaw,
>
> On 18 December 2014 at 03:26, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Hello Simon,
>>
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 04:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>
>>> On 17 December 2014 at 02:03, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak
>>>>>>> <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>>>>>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>>>>>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>>>>>>> the we have two cases:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Case 1:
>>>>>>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>>>>>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>>>>>>> - Read OK!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Case 2:
>>>>>>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>>>>>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>>>>>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>>>>>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>>>>>>> - Read fail!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>>>>>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>>>>>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>>>>>>       before the read of two next
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>>>>>>> which works good as previous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is very interesting\! Is this the same failure that I saw on this
>>>>>>> thread?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revision-td196720.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (search for fatload)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the
>>>>>>> device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try
>>>>>>> from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find the
>>>>>>> file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what
>>>>>>> year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer
>>>>>> bug.
>>>>>> Does this patch fixed your issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool.
>>>>>> It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted using
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using
>>>>>> U-Boot
>>>>>> fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full
>>>>>> automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files were
>>>>>> found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox.
>>>>>> My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this:
>>>>>> echo
>>>>>> "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can change
>>>>>> fat
>>>>>> directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read
>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will send the scripts for such simple test.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if
>>>>> I can make time to test it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that
>>>>> fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function
>>>>> there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from
>>>>> U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it was
>>>> just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.
>>>
>>>
>>> Somewhat bewildering, but it does not in fact fix my problem.
>>>
>>> Here is a compressed version of the fat filesystem if you want to take a
>>> look:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7WYZbZ9zd-3NGRMNkFQQTdtV2M/view?usp=sharing
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> I had put this image on my Trats2 device on partition mmc 0:6 using ums and
>> dd linux command. Next I put latest mainline u-boot, commit:
>> e3bf81b1e841ecabe7c8b3d48621256db8b8623e : "Merge branch 'master' of
>> git://git.denx.de/u-boot-mpc85xx"
>>
>> So this is the version with the fat bug. But I can see and load the file:
>> "bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb".
>>
>> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>>      17840   bootcode.bin
>>        120   cmdline.txt
>>       1331   config.txt
>>       6115   fixup.dat
>>       2324   fixup_cd.dat
>>       9166   fixup_x.dat
>>    3232856   kernel.img
>>    2615064   start.elf
>>     533080   start_cd.elf
>>    3572200   start_x.elf
>>        137   issue.txt
>>      18974   license.oracle
>>     295524   u-boot.bin
>>       1331   config.txt~
>>              extlinux/
>>    3368648   zimage
>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>>       3963   bcm2835.dtb
>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>
>> 18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>>
>> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>> reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>> 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s)
>> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b
>> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db
>> Trats2 #
>>
>> The only missing file is "boot.scr", it's ignored by "ls" command but can be
>> loaded...
>>
>> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  boot.scr
>> reading boot.scr
>> 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s)
>> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100
>> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
>>
>> I suppose that the partition image which you shared for me is little
>> different, than this mentioned in the topic "[PATCH U-Boot] ARM: rpi_b:
>> detect board revision"
>>
>> Probably the sequence of writing files to this partition was different, and
>> the different file is ignored.
>>
>> After putting the debug macro on the top of fs/fat/fat.c:
>>
>> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>> VFAT Support enabled
>> FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32
>> Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000
>> Data begins at: 80
>> Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16
>> FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>      17840   bootcode.bin
>>        120   cmdline.txt
>>       1331   config.txt
>>       6115   fixup.dat
>>       2324   fixup_cd.dat
>>       9166   fixup_x.dat
>>    3232856   kernel.img
>>    2615064   start.elf
>> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>>     533080   start_cd.elf
>>    3572200   start_x.elf
>>        137   issue.txt
>>      18974   license.oracle
>>     295524   u-boot.bin
>>       1331   config.txt~
>> END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
>> FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>              extlinux/
>>    3368648   zimage
>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>>       3963   bcm2835.dtb
>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>> RootDentname == NULL - 0
>>
>> 18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>>
>> And next test on commit 9b416a9f4ca7cf5ac4d5f7143d67edde7f7d7326 with my fat
>> patch.
>>
>> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>>      17840   bootcode.bin
>>        120   cmdline.txt
>>       1331   config.txt
>>       6115   fixup.dat
>>       2324   fixup_cd.dat
>>       9166   fixup_x.dat
>>    3232856   kernel.img
>>    2615064   start.elf
>>     533080   start_cd.elf
>>    3572200   start_x.elf
>>        137   issue.txt
>>      18974   license.oracle
>>     295524   u-boot.bin
>>       1331   config.txt~
>>        256   boot.scr
>>              extlinux/
>>    3368648   zimage
>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>>       3963   bcm2835.dtb
>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>
>> 19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>>
>> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>> reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>> 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s)
>> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b
>> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db
>> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  boot.scr
>> reading boot.scr
>> 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s)
>> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100
>> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
>>
>> So the only difference on this image is, that with my patch, the file
>> "boot.scr" ignored by ls command is now visible - but in both cases it can
>> be loaded into memory and the crc is correct.
>>
>> After enabling the debug:
>>
>> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>> VFAT Support enabled
>> FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32
>> Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000
>> Data begins at: 80
>> Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16
>> FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>      17840   bootcode.bin
>>        120   cmdline.txt
>>       1331   config.txt
>>       6115   fixup.dat
>>       2324   fixup_cd.dat
>>       9166   fixup_x.dat
>>    3232856   kernel.img
>>    2615064   start.elf
>> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>> FAT read sect=81, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>     533080   start_cd.elf
>>    3572200   start_x.elf
>>        137   issue.txt
>>      18974   license.oracle
>>     295524   u-boot.bin
>>       1331   config.txt~
>>        256   boot.scr
>> END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
>> FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>              extlinux/
>>    3368648   zimage
>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>>       3963   bcm2835.dtb
>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>> FAT read sect=83, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>> RootDentname == NULL - 0
>>
>> 19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>>
>> So as I checked the file:
>> 256   boot.scr
>> is next behind to the:
>> 1331   config.txt~
>>
>> And this can be checked with hex dump:
>> hd -s 0xa400 -n 512  bad-fat.dd
>>
>> Your fat image is good example of what my patch fixes.
>>
>> As you can see on the simple debug info, without the fix,the sector 80 and
>> 81 is stored in the buffer (there are always 2 sectors in the buffer). If
>> you see the hex dump of the second sector:
>>
>> hd -s 0xa200 -n 512  bad-fat.dd
>>
>> You will see that at the end of this sector, there is a long name entry for
>> file "boot.scr".
>>
>> In the next loop (without the fix):
>> END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
>> FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>              extlinux/
>> the sector 82 and 83 is loaded in to the buffer, so the long name entry of
>> "boot.scr" file from the end of sector 81 is now in the heaven, and the file
>> will be ignored by the ls command.
>>
>> The sector 82 can be checked by:
>> hd -s 0xa400 -n 512  bad-fat.dd
>>
>> It begins with the short name entry of file "boot.scr".
>>
>> After applying my fix, there are always three sectors in the buffer, because
>> the last one is moved into the buffer begin and two next are loaded into the
>> buffer next to the last one.
>> And the buffer pointer is always on the second buffered sector beside first
>> loop.
>>
>> So I think this patch fixes the issue well.
>>
>> Could you describe your issue more precisely?
>
> I think you left out the path. The file I tried to load was:
>
>   /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>
> It works OK without the path on the front.
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>

Yes I didn't use any path.
But why are you using such path, if there is no such directory?
There is only /extlinux directory on the fat image which you shared.

Best regards,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Simon Glass]

Hi Przemyslaw,

On 18 December 2014 at 06:31, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> On 12/18/2014 02:14 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>
>> On 18 December 2014 at 03:26, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Simon,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/18/2014 04:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>>
>>>> On 17 December 2014 at 02:03, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak
>>>>>> <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak
>>>>>>>> <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>>>>>>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>>>>>>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>>>>>>>> the we have two cases:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Case 1:
>>>>>>>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>>>>>>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>>>>>>>> - Read OK!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Case 2:
>>>>>>>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>>>>>>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>>>>>>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>>>>>>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>>>>>>>> - Read fail!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>>>>>>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>>>>>>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>>>>>>>       before the read of two next
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>>>>>>>> which works good as previous.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is very interesting\! Is this the same failure that I saw on
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> thread?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revision-td196720.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (search for fatload)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the
>>>>>>>> device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try
>>>>>>>> from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what
>>>>>>>> year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer
>>>>>>> bug.
>>>>>>> Does this patch fixed your issue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool.
>>>>>>> It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted
>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using
>>>>>>> U-Boot
>>>>>>> fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full
>>>>>>> automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox.
>>>>>>> My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this:
>>>>>>> echo
>>>>>>> "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can
>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>> fat
>>>>>>> directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read
>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will send the scripts for such simple test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if
>>>>>> I can make time to test it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that
>>>>>> fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function
>>>>>> there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from
>>>>>> U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it
>>>>> was
>>>>> just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Somewhat bewildering, but it does not in fact fix my problem.
>>>>
>>>> Here is a compressed version of the fat filesystem if you want to take a
>>>> look:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7WYZbZ9zd-3NGRMNkFQQTdtV2M/view?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Simon
>>>>
>>>
>>> I had put this image on my Trats2 device on partition mmc 0:6 using ums
>>> and
>>> dd linux command. Next I put latest mainline u-boot, commit:
>>> e3bf81b1e841ecabe7c8b3d48621256db8b8623e : "Merge branch 'master' of
>>> git://git.denx.de/u-boot-mpc85xx"
>>>
>>> So this is the version with the fat bug. But I can see and load the file:
>>> "bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb".
>>>
>>> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>>>      17840   bootcode.bin
>>>        120   cmdline.txt
>>>       1331   config.txt
>>>       6115   fixup.dat
>>>       2324   fixup_cd.dat
>>>       9166   fixup_x.dat
>>>    3232856   kernel.img
>>>    2615064   start.elf
>>>     533080   start_cd.elf
>>>    3572200   start_x.elf
>>>        137   issue.txt
>>>      18974   license.oracle
>>>     295524   u-boot.bin
>>>       1331   config.txt~
>>>              extlinux/
>>>    3368648   zimage
>>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>>>       3963   bcm2835.dtb
>>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>>
>>> 18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>>>
>>> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>> reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>> 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s)
>>> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b
>>> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db
>>> Trats2 #
>>>
>>> The only missing file is "boot.scr", it's ignored by "ls" command but can
>>> be
>>> loaded...
>>>
>>> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  boot.scr
>>> reading boot.scr
>>> 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s)
>>> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100
>>> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
>>>
>>> I suppose that the partition image which you shared for me is little
>>> different, than this mentioned in the topic "[PATCH U-Boot] ARM: rpi_b:
>>> detect board revision"
>>>
>>> Probably the sequence of writing files to this partition was different,
>>> and
>>> the different file is ignored.
>>>
>>> After putting the debug macro on the top of fs/fat/fat.c:
>>>
>>> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>>> VFAT Support enabled
>>> FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32
>>> Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000
>>> Data begins at: 80
>>> Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16
>>> FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>      17840   bootcode.bin
>>>        120   cmdline.txt
>>>       1331   config.txt
>>>       6115   fixup.dat
>>>       2324   fixup_cd.dat
>>>       9166   fixup_x.dat
>>>    3232856   kernel.img
>>>    2615064   start.elf
>>> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>>>     533080   start_cd.elf
>>>    3572200   start_x.elf
>>>        137   issue.txt
>>>      18974   license.oracle
>>>     295524   u-boot.bin
>>>       1331   config.txt~
>>> END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
>>> FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>              extlinux/
>>>    3368648   zimage
>>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>>>       3963   bcm2835.dtb
>>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>>> RootDentname == NULL - 0
>>>
>>> 18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>>>
>>> And next test on commit 9b416a9f4ca7cf5ac4d5f7143d67edde7f7d7326 with my
>>> fat
>>> patch.
>>>
>>> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>>>      17840   bootcode.bin
>>>        120   cmdline.txt
>>>       1331   config.txt
>>>       6115   fixup.dat
>>>       2324   fixup_cd.dat
>>>       9166   fixup_x.dat
>>>    3232856   kernel.img
>>>    2615064   start.elf
>>>     533080   start_cd.elf
>>>    3572200   start_x.elf
>>>        137   issue.txt
>>>      18974   license.oracle
>>>     295524   u-boot.bin
>>>       1331   config.txt~
>>>        256   boot.scr
>>>              extlinux/
>>>    3368648   zimage
>>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>>>       3963   bcm2835.dtb
>>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>>
>>> 19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>>>
>>> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>> reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>> 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s)
>>> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b
>>> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db
>>> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  boot.scr
>>> reading boot.scr
>>> 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s)
>>> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100
>>> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
>>>
>>> So the only difference on this image is, that with my patch, the file
>>> "boot.scr" ignored by ls command is now visible - but in both cases it
>>> can
>>> be loaded into memory and the crc is correct.
>>>
>>> After enabling the debug:
>>>
>>> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>>> VFAT Support enabled
>>> FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32
>>> Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000
>>> Data begins at: 80
>>> Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16
>>> FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>      17840   bootcode.bin
>>>        120   cmdline.txt
>>>       1331   config.txt
>>>       6115   fixup.dat
>>>       2324   fixup_cd.dat
>>>       9166   fixup_x.dat
>>>    3232856   kernel.img
>>>    2615064   start.elf
>>> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>>> FAT read sect=81, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>     533080   start_cd.elf
>>>    3572200   start_x.elf
>>>        137   issue.txt
>>>      18974   license.oracle
>>>     295524   u-boot.bin
>>>       1331   config.txt~
>>>        256   boot.scr
>>> END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
>>> FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>              extlinux/
>>>    3368648   zimage
>>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>>>       3963   bcm2835.dtb
>>>       3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>>> FAT read sect=83, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>> RootDentname == NULL - 0
>>>
>>> 19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>>>
>>> So as I checked the file:
>>> 256   boot.scr
>>> is next behind to the:
>>> 1331   config.txt~
>>>
>>> And this can be checked with hex dump:
>>> hd -s 0xa400 -n 512  bad-fat.dd
>>>
>>> Your fat image is good example of what my patch fixes.
>>>
>>> As you can see on the simple debug info, without the fix,the sector 80
>>> and
>>> 81 is stored in the buffer (there are always 2 sectors in the buffer). If
>>> you see the hex dump of the second sector:
>>>
>>> hd -s 0xa200 -n 512  bad-fat.dd
>>>
>>> You will see that at the end of this sector, there is a long name entry
>>> for
>>> file "boot.scr".
>>>
>>> In the next loop (without the fix):
>>> END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
>>> FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>              extlinux/
>>> the sector 82 and 83 is loaded in to the buffer, so the long name entry
>>> of
>>> "boot.scr" file from the end of sector 81 is now in the heaven, and the
>>> file
>>> will be ignored by the ls command.
>>>
>>> The sector 82 can be checked by:
>>> hd -s 0xa400 -n 512  bad-fat.dd
>>>
>>> It begins with the short name entry of file "boot.scr".
>>>
>>> After applying my fix, there are always three sectors in the buffer,
>>> because
>>> the last one is moved into the buffer begin and two next are loaded into
>>> the
>>> buffer next to the last one.
>>> And the buffer pointer is always on the second buffered sector beside
>>> first
>>> loop.
>>>
>>> So I think this patch fixes the issue well.
>>>
>>> Could you describe your issue more precisely?
>>
>>
>> I think you left out the path. The file I tried to load was:
>>
>>   /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>
>> It works OK without the path on the front.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Simon
>>
>
> Yes I didn't use any path.
> But why are you using such path, if there is no such directory?
> There is only /extlinux directory on the fat image which you shared.

This is a feature of the extlinux system, a general way of loading a
kernel that U-Boot now supports. It feels like a U-Boot bug to me.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

Hello,

On 12/18/2014 02:36 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Przemyslaw,
>
> On 18 December 2014 at 06:31, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 02:14 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>
>>> On 18 December 2014 at 03:26, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Simon,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/18/2014 04:39 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17 December 2014 at 02:03, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/16/2014 11:26 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12 December 2014 at 08:30, Przemyslaw Marczak
>>>>>>> <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2014 01:32 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak
>>>>>>>>> <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>>>>>>>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>>>>>>>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>>>>>>>>> the we have two cases:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Case 1:
>>>>>>>>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>>>>>>>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>>>>>>>>> - Read OK!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Case 2:
>>>>>>>>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>>>>>>>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>>>>>>>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>>>>>>>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>>>>>>>>> - Read fail!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>>>>>>>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>>>>>>>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>>>>>>>>        before the read of two next
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>>>>>>>>> which works good as previous.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is very interesting\! Is this the same failure that I saw on
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> thread?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://u-boot.10912.n7.nabble.com/PATCH-U-Boot-ARM-rpi-b-detect-board-revision-td196720.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (search for fatload)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "I tried this out. It worked OK for me except that it can't find the
>>>>>>>>> device tree file bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oddly I can fatload it from /bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb but when I try
>>>>>>>>> from /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb it fails and cannot find
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> file. Reducing the filename length to 8 chars works. I wonder what
>>>>>>>>> year of my life FAT will stop plaguing me? "
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also can you write a test for this in test/fs/fs-test.sh?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Probably this is an another case which is caused by the sector buffer
>>>>>>>> bug.
>>>>>>>> Does this patch fixed your issue?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have some simple test for manual use with the ums tool.
>>>>>>>> It just copy the test files to the tested fat16 partition mounted
>>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> UMS, next it computes CRC32 of those files on the host and next using
>>>>>>>> U-Boot
>>>>>>>> fatload/crc32 commands - it tests the read feature. But it's not full
>>>>>>>> automated - I didn't work on getting the log from U-Boot console.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I could check if the file checksums are proper and if all files
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> found on the partiion, by the U-Boot read command. It's not useful
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> "test/fs/fs-test.sh" because this is not designed for the sandbox.
>>>>>>>> My test writes some commands directly to U-Boot console, like this:
>>>>>>>> echo
>>>>>>>> "some cmd" > /dev/ttyS0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately the sandbox config seems to be broken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bug was not so obvious, any read/write on fat partition can
>>>>>>>> change
>>>>>>>> fat
>>>>>>>> directory entries or add the new ones and then all data can be read
>>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will send the scripts for such simple test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure if it fixes my problem but it seems likely. I will see if
>>>>>>> I can make time to test it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to write input data to U-Boot sandbox we can do that
>>>>>>> fairly easily. You can import cros_subprocess and use the function
>>>>>>> there to generate output from your test and inspect the input from
>>>>>>> U-Boot's command line. Let me know if you'd like an example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Simon
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before, I wrote, that sandbox seems to be broken, sorry for this - it
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> just my dirty repo - sandbox compiles and works well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Somewhat bewildering, but it does not in fact fix my problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a compressed version of the fat filesystem if you want to take a
>>>>> look:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7WYZbZ9zd-3NGRMNkFQQTdtV2M/view?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Simon
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I had put this image on my Trats2 device on partition mmc 0:6 using ums
>>>> and
>>>> dd linux command. Next I put latest mainline u-boot, commit:
>>>> e3bf81b1e841ecabe7c8b3d48621256db8b8623e : "Merge branch 'master' of
>>>> git://git.denx.de/u-boot-mpc85xx"
>>>>
>>>> So this is the version with the fat bug. But I can see and load the file:
>>>> "bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb".
>>>>
>>>> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>>>>       17840   bootcode.bin
>>>>         120   cmdline.txt
>>>>        1331   config.txt
>>>>        6115   fixup.dat
>>>>        2324   fixup_cd.dat
>>>>        9166   fixup_x.dat
>>>>     3232856   kernel.img
>>>>     2615064   start.elf
>>>>      533080   start_cd.elf
>>>>     3572200   start_x.elf
>>>>         137   issue.txt
>>>>       18974   license.oracle
>>>>      295524   u-boot.bin
>>>>        1331   config.txt~
>>>>               extlinux/
>>>>     3368648   zimage
>>>>        3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>>>>        3963   bcm2835.dtb
>>>>        3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>>>
>>>> 18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>>>>
>>>> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>>> reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>>> 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s)
>>>> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b
>>>> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db
>>>> Trats2 #
>>>>
>>>> The only missing file is "boot.scr", it's ignored by "ls" command but can
>>>> be
>>>> loaded...
>>>>
>>>> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  boot.scr
>>>> reading boot.scr
>>>> 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s)
>>>> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100
>>>> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
>>>>
>>>> I suppose that the partition image which you shared for me is little
>>>> different, than this mentioned in the topic "[PATCH U-Boot] ARM: rpi_b:
>>>> detect board revision"
>>>>
>>>> Probably the sequence of writing files to this partition was different,
>>>> and
>>>> the different file is ignored.
>>>>
>>>> After putting the debug macro on the top of fs/fat/fat.c:
>>>>
>>>> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>>>> VFAT Support enabled
>>>> FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32
>>>> Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000
>>>> Data begins at: 80
>>>> Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16
>>>> FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>>       17840   bootcode.bin
>>>>         120   cmdline.txt
>>>>        1331   config.txt
>>>>        6115   fixup.dat
>>>>        2324   fixup_cd.dat
>>>>        9166   fixup_x.dat
>>>>     3232856   kernel.img
>>>>     2615064   start.elf
>>>> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>>>>      533080   start_cd.elf
>>>>     3572200   start_x.elf
>>>>         137   issue.txt
>>>>       18974   license.oracle
>>>>      295524   u-boot.bin
>>>>        1331   config.txt~
>>>> END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
>>>> FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>>               extlinux/
>>>>     3368648   zimage
>>>>        3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>>>>        3963   bcm2835.dtb
>>>>        3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>>> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>>>> RootDentname == NULL - 0
>>>>
>>>> 18 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>>>>
>>>> And next test on commit 9b416a9f4ca7cf5ac4d5f7143d67edde7f7d7326 with my
>>>> fat
>>>> patch.
>>>>
>>>> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>>>>       17840   bootcode.bin
>>>>         120   cmdline.txt
>>>>        1331   config.txt
>>>>        6115   fixup.dat
>>>>        2324   fixup_cd.dat
>>>>        9166   fixup_x.dat
>>>>     3232856   kernel.img
>>>>     2615064   start.elf
>>>>      533080   start_cd.elf
>>>>     3572200   start_x.elf
>>>>         137   issue.txt
>>>>       18974   license.oracle
>>>>      295524   u-boot.bin
>>>>        1331   config.txt~
>>>>         256   boot.scr
>>>>               extlinux/
>>>>     3368648   zimage
>>>>        3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>>>>        3963   bcm2835.dtb
>>>>        3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>>>
>>>> 19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>>>>
>>>> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>>> reading bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>>> 3963 bytes read in 5 ms (773.4 KiB/s)
>>>> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0xf7b
>>>> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 40000f7a ==> c36ee8db
>>>> Trats2 # fatload mmc 0:6 0x40000000  boot.scr
>>>> reading boot.scr
>>>> 256 bytes read in 2 ms (125 KiB/s)
>>>> Trats2 # crc32 0x40000000 0x100
>>>> CRC32 for 40000000 ... 400000ff ==> dc5c79b3
>>>>
>>>> So the only difference on this image is, that with my patch, the file
>>>> "boot.scr" ignored by ls command is now visible - but in both cases it
>>>> can
>>>> be loaded into memory and the crc is correct.
>>>>
>>>> After enabling the debug:
>>>>
>>>> Trats2 # fatls mmc 0:6
>>>> VFAT Support enabled
>>>> FAT16, fat_sect: 16, fatlength: 32
>>>> Rootdir begins at cluster: 0, sector: 80, offset: a000
>>>> Data begins at: 80
>>>> Sector size: 512, cluster size: 16
>>>> FAT read sect=80, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>>       17840   bootcode.bin
>>>>         120   cmdline.txt
>>>>        1331   config.txt
>>>>        6115   fixup.dat
>>>>        2324   fixup_cd.dat
>>>>        9166   fixup_x.dat
>>>>     3232856   kernel.img
>>>>     2615064   start.elf
>>>> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>>>> FAT read sect=81, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>>      533080   start_cd.elf
>>>>     3572200   start_x.elf
>>>>         137   issue.txt
>>>>       18974   license.oracle
>>>>      295524   u-boot.bin
>>>>        1331   config.txt~
>>>>         256   boot.scr
>>>> END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
>>>> FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>>               extlinux/
>>>>     3368648   zimage
>>>>        3963   bcm2835-rpi-b.dtb
>>>>        3963   bcm2835.dtb
>>>>        3963   bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>>> END LOOP: j=0   clust_size=16
>>>> FAT read sect=83, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>> RootDentname == NULL - 0
>>>>
>>>> 19 file(s), 1 dir(s)
>>>>
>>>> So as I checked the file:
>>>> 256   boot.scr
>>>> is next behind to the:
>>>> 1331   config.txt~
>>>>
>>>> And this can be checked with hex dump:
>>>> hd -s 0xa400 -n 512  bad-fat.dd
>>>>
>>>> Your fat image is good example of what my patch fixes.
>>>>
>>>> As you can see on the simple debug info, without the fix,the sector 80
>>>> and
>>>> 81 is stored in the buffer (there are always 2 sectors in the buffer). If
>>>> you see the hex dump of the second sector:
>>>>
>>>> hd -s 0xa200 -n 512  bad-fat.dd
>>>>
>>>> You will see that at the end of this sector, there is a long name entry
>>>> for
>>>> file "boot.scr".
>>>>
>>>> In the next loop (without the fix):
>>>> END LOOP: j=1   clust_size=16
>>>> FAT read sect=82, clust_size=16, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=16
>>>>               extlinux/
>>>> the sector 82 and 83 is loaded in to the buffer, so the long name entry
>>>> of
>>>> "boot.scr" file from the end of sector 81 is now in the heaven, and the
>>>> file
>>>> will be ignored by the ls command.
>>>>
>>>> The sector 82 can be checked by:
>>>> hd -s 0xa400 -n 512  bad-fat.dd
>>>>
>>>> It begins with the short name entry of file "boot.scr".
>>>>
>>>> After applying my fix, there are always three sectors in the buffer,
>>>> because
>>>> the last one is moved into the buffer begin and two next are loaded into
>>>> the
>>>> buffer next to the last one.
>>>> And the buffer pointer is always on the second buffered sector beside
>>>> first
>>>> loop.
>>>>
>>>> So I think this patch fixes the issue well.
>>>>
>>>> Could you describe your issue more precisely?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you left out the path. The file I tried to load was:
>>>
>>>    /syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb
>>>
>>> It works OK without the path on the front.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Simon
>>>
>>
>> Yes I didn't use any path.
>> But why are you using such path, if there is no such directory?
>> There is only /extlinux directory on the fat image which you shared.
>
> This is a feature of the extlinux system, a general way of loading a
> kernel that U-Boot now supports. It feels like a U-Boot bug to me.
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
Oh, I see. I didn't used this yet.

But anyway, the fat image which you shared also shows the bug in the fat.

Best regards,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>
> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>
> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
> the we have two cases:
>
> Case 1:
> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
> for long file name is in the buffer.
> - Read OK!
>
> Case 2:
> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
> - Read fail!
>
> This commit fixes this issue by:
> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>   before the read of two next
>
> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
> which works good as previous.
>
> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
> Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov <lebon@lebon.org.ua>
> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> Cc: Suriyan Ramasami <suriyan.r@gmail.com>
> Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
> Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
> ---
>  fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Tested-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chomium.org>

>
> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c
> index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644
> --- a/fs/fat/fat.c
> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c
> @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
>         int ret = -1;
>         int firsttime;
>         __u32 root_cluster = 0;
> +       __u32 read_blk;
>         int rootdir_size = 0;
> -       int j;
> +       int j, k;

What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might
save needing a comment for them.

> +       int do_read;
> +       __u8 *dir_ptr;

Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
>
>         if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) {
>                 debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");
> @@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
>         }
>
>         j = 0;
> +       k = 0;
>         while (1) {
>                 int i;
>
> -               if (j == 0) {
> +               if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) {
> +                       dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;
> +                       k = 1;
> +               } else {
> +                       dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block + mydata->sect_size);
> +                       memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr, mydata->sect_size);
> +               }
> +
> +               do_read = 1;
> +
> +               if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j)
> +                       do_read = 0;
> +
> +               if (do_read) {
>                         debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n",
>                                 cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
>
> -                       if (disk_read(cursect,
> -                                       (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
> -                                       (mydata->clust_size) :
> -                                       PREFETCH_BLOCKS,
> -                                       do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
> +                       read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
> +                                   mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;
> +                       if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) {
>                                 debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n");
>                                 goto exit;
>                         }
>
> -                       dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
> +                       dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr;
>                 }
>
>                 for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {
> @@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
>
>                                         get_vfatname(mydata,
>                                                      root_cluster,
> -                                                    do_fat_read_at_block,
> +                                                    dir_ptr,
>                                                      dentptr, l_name);
>
>                                         if (dols == LS_ROOT) {
> --
> 1.9.1
>

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

Hello,

On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>
>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>
>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>> the we have two cases:
>>
>> Case 1:
>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>> - Read OK!
>>
>> Case 2:
>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>> - Read fail!
>>
>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>    before the read of two next
>>
>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>> which works good as previous.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>> Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov <lebon@lebon.org.ua>
>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
>> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> Cc: Suriyan Ramasami <suriyan.r@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
>> Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
>> ---
>>   fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>   1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> Tested-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chomium.org>
>

Thank you.

>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c
>> index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644
>> --- a/fs/fat/fat.c
>> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c
>> @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
>>          int ret = -1;
>>          int firsttime;
>>          __u32 root_cluster = 0;
>> +       __u32 read_blk;
>>          int rootdir_size = 0;
>> -       int j;
>> +       int j, k;
>
> What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might
> save needing a comment for them.
>

k is a counter for a first time read. I will change this code and add 
some comment.

>> +       int do_read;
>> +       __u8 *dir_ptr;
>
> Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
>>
>>          if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) {
>>                  debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");
>> @@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
>>          }
>>
>>          j = 0;
>> +       k = 0;
>>          while (1) {
>>                  int i;
>>
>> -               if (j == 0) {
>> +               if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) {
>> +                       dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;
>> +                       k = 1;
>> +               } else {
>> +                       dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block + mydata->sect_size);
>> +                       memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr, mydata->sect_size);
>> +               }
>> +
>> +               do_read = 1;
>> +
>> +               if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j)
>> +                       do_read = 0;
>> +
>> +               if (do_read) {
>>                          debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n",
>>                                  cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
>>
>> -                       if (disk_read(cursect,
>> -                                       (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
>> -                                       (mydata->clust_size) :
>> -                                       PREFETCH_BLOCKS,
>> -                                       do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
>> +                       read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
>> +                                   mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;
>> +                       if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) {
>>                                  debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n");
>>                                  goto exit;
>>                          }
>>
>> -                       dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
>> +                       dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr;
>>                  }
>>
>>                  for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {
>> @@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
>>
>>                                          get_vfatname(mydata,
>>                                                       root_cluster,
>> -                                                    do_fat_read_at_block,
>> +                                                    dir_ptr,
>>                                                       dentptr, l_name);
>>
>>                                          if (dols == LS_ROOT) {
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>

Thank you and best regards,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

Hello,

On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>
>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>
>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>> the we have two cases:
>>
>> Case 1:
>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>> - Read OK!
>>
>> Case 2:
>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>> - Read fail!
>>
>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>    before the read of two next
>>
>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>> which works good as previous.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>> Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov <lebon@lebon.org.ua>
>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
>> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> Cc: Suriyan Ramasami <suriyan.r@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
>> Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
>> ---
>>   fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>   1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> Tested-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chomium.org>
>
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c
>> index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644
>> --- a/fs/fat/fat.c
>> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c
>> @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
>>          int ret = -1;
>>          int firsttime;
>>          __u32 root_cluster = 0;
>> +       __u32 read_blk;
>>          int rootdir_size = 0;
>> -       int j;
>> +       int j, k;
>
> What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might
> save needing a comment for them.
>
>> +       int do_read;
>> +       __u8 *dir_ptr;
>
> Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?

__u8 is used in a whole fat code, and also as a directory entry buffer, 
so why not to keep the whole code style?

>>
>>          if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) {
>>                  debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");
>> @@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
>>          }
>>
>>          j = 0;
>> +       k = 0;
>>          while (1) {
>>                  int i;
>>
>> -               if (j == 0) {
>> +               if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) {
>> +                       dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;
>> +                       k = 1;
>> +               } else {
>> +                       dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block + mydata->sect_size);
>> +                       memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr, mydata->sect_size);
>> +               }
>> +
>> +               do_read = 1;
>> +
>> +               if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j)
>> +                       do_read = 0;
>> +
>> +               if (do_read) {
>>                          debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n",
>>                                  cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
>>
>> -                       if (disk_read(cursect,
>> -                                       (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
>> -                                       (mydata->clust_size) :
>> -                                       PREFETCH_BLOCKS,
>> -                                       do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
>> +                       read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
>> +                                   mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;
>> +                       if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) {
>>                                  debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n");
>>                                  goto exit;
>>                          }
>>
>> -                       dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
>> +                       dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr;
>>                  }
>>
>>                  for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {
>> @@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
>>
>>                                          get_vfatname(mydata,
>>                                                       root_cluster,
>> -                                                    do_fat_read_at_block,
>> +                                                    dir_ptr,
>>                                                       dentptr, l_name);
>>
>>                                          if (dols == LS_ROOT) {
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>

Thanks,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Simon Glass]

Hi Przemyslaw,

On 18 December 2014 at 07:32, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>
>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>
>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>> the we have two cases:
>>>
>>> Case 1:
>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>> - Read OK!
>>>
>>> Case 2:
>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>> - Read fail!
>>>
>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>    before the read of two next
>>>
>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>> which works good as previous.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>> Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov <lebon@lebon.org.ua>
>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
>>> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>> Cc: Suriyan Ramasami <suriyan.r@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
>>> Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
>>> ---
>>>   fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>   1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>>
>> Tested-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chomium.org>
>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c
>>> index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644
>>> --- a/fs/fat/fat.c
>>> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c
>>> @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos,
>>> void *buffer,
>>>          int ret = -1;
>>>          int firsttime;
>>>          __u32 root_cluster = 0;
>>> +       __u32 read_blk;
>>>          int rootdir_size = 0;
>>> -       int j;
>>> +       int j, k;
>>
>>
>> What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might
>> save needing a comment for them.
>>
>>> +       int do_read;
>>> +       __u8 *dir_ptr;
>>
>>
>> Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
>
>
> __u8 is used in a whole fat code, and also as a directory entry buffer, so
> why not to keep the whole code style?

OK, sounds good.

Do you have any ideas on the bug I reported?

>
>
>>>
>>>          if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) {
>>>                  debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");
>>> @@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t
>>> pos, void *buffer,
>>>          }
>>>
>>>          j = 0;
>>> +       k = 0;
>>>          while (1) {
>>>                  int i;
>>>
>>> -               if (j == 0) {
>>> +               if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) {
>>> +                       dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;
>>> +                       k = 1;
>>> +               } else {
>>> +                       dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block +
>>> mydata->sect_size);
>>> +                       memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr,
>>> mydata->sect_size);
>>> +               }
>>> +
>>> +               do_read = 1;
>>> +
>>> +               if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j)
>>> +                       do_read = 0;
>>> +
>>> +               if (do_read) {
>>>                          debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d,
>>> DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n",
>>>                                  cursect, mydata->clust_size,
>>> DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
>>>
>>> -                       if (disk_read(cursect,
>>> -                                       (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
>>> -                                       (mydata->clust_size) :
>>> -                                       PREFETCH_BLOCKS,
>>> -                                       do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
>>> +                       read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
>>> +                                   mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;
>>> +                       if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) {
>>>                                  debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n");
>>>                                  goto exit;
>>>                          }
>>>
>>> -                       dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
>>> +                       dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr;
>>>                  }
>>>
>>>                  for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {
>>> @@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos,
>>> void *buffer,
>>>
>>>                                          get_vfatname(mydata,
>>>                                                       root_cluster,
>>> -
>>> do_fat_read_at_block,
>>> +                                                    dir_ptr,
>>>                                                       dentptr, l_name);
>>>
>>>                                          if (dols == LS_ROOT) {
>>> --
>>> 1.9.1

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

Hello,

On 12/18/2014 03:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Przemyslaw,
>
> On 18 December 2014 at 07:32, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>>
>>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>>
>>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>>> the we have two cases:
>>>>
>>>> Case 1:
>>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>>> - Read OK!
>>>>
>>>> Case 2:
>>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>>> - Read fail!
>>>>
>>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>>     before the read of two next
>>>>
>>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>>> which works good as previous.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>> Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov <lebon@lebon.org.ua>
>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
>>>> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>> Cc: Suriyan Ramasami <suriyan.r@gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
>>>> Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
>>>> ---
>>>>    fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>>    1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Tested-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chomium.org>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c
>>>> index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/fat/fat.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c
>>>> @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos,
>>>> void *buffer,
>>>>           int ret = -1;
>>>>           int firsttime;
>>>>           __u32 root_cluster = 0;
>>>> +       __u32 read_blk;
>>>>           int rootdir_size = 0;
>>>> -       int j;
>>>> +       int j, k;
>>>
>>>
>>> What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might
>>> save needing a comment for them.
>>>
>>>> +       int do_read;
>>>> +       __u8 *dir_ptr;
>>>
>>>
>>> Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
>>
>>
>> __u8 is used in a whole fat code, and also as a directory entry buffer, so
>> why not to keep the whole code style?
>
> OK, sounds good.
>
> Do you have any ideas on the bug I reported?
>

No, but I think that this is not any fat issue.

>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>           if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) {
>>>>                   debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");
>>>> @@ -910,23 +913,35 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t
>>>> pos, void *buffer,
>>>>           }
>>>>
>>>>           j = 0;
>>>> +       k = 0;
>>>>           while (1) {
>>>>                   int i;
>>>>
>>>> -               if (j == 0) {
>>>> +               if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || !k) {
>>>> +                       dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;
>>>> +                       k = 1;
>>>> +               } else {
>>>> +                       dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block +
>>>> mydata->sect_size);
>>>> +                       memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr,
>>>> mydata->sect_size);
>>>> +               }
>>>> +
>>>> +               do_read = 1;
>>>> +
>>>> +               if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && j)
>>>> +                       do_read = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +               if (do_read) {
>>>>                           debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d,
>>>> DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n",
>>>>                                   cursect, mydata->clust_size,
>>>> DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
>>>>
>>>> -                       if (disk_read(cursect,
>>>> -                                       (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
>>>> -                                       (mydata->clust_size) :
>>>> -                                       PREFETCH_BLOCKS,
>>>> -                                       do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
>>>> +                       read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
>>>> +                                   mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;
>>>> +                       if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) {
>>>>                                   debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n");
>>>>                                   goto exit;
>>>>                           }
>>>>
>>>> -                       dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
>>>> +                       dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr;
>>>>                   }
>>>>
>>>>                   for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {
>>>> @@ -951,7 +966,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos,
>>>> void *buffer,
>>>>
>>>>                                           get_vfatname(mydata,
>>>>                                                        root_cluster,
>>>> -
>>>> do_fat_read_at_block,
>>>> +                                                    dir_ptr,
>>>>                                                        dentptr, l_name);
>>>>
>>>>                                           if (dols == LS_ROOT) {
>>>> --
>>>> 1.9.1
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>

Thanks,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On 18 December 2014 at 07:40, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> On 12/18/2014 03:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>
>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>
>> On 18 December 2014 at 07:32, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>>>
>>>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>>>
>>>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>>>> the we have two cases:
>>>>>
>>>>> Case 1:
>>>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>>>> - Read OK!
>>>>>
>>>>> Case 2:
>>>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>>>> - Read fail!
>>>>>
>>>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>>>     before the read of two next
>>>>>
>>>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>>>> which works good as previous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>>> Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov <lebon@lebon.org.ua>
>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
>>>>> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>> Cc: Suriyan Ramasami <suriyan.r@gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
>>>>> Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>>>    1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tested-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chomium.org>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c
>>>>> index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/fat/fat.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c
>>>>> @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t
>>>>> pos,
>>>>> void *buffer,
>>>>>           int ret = -1;
>>>>>           int firsttime;
>>>>>           __u32 root_cluster = 0;
>>>>> +       __u32 read_blk;
>>>>>           int rootdir_size = 0;
>>>>> -       int j;
>>>>> +       int j, k;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might
>>>> save needing a comment for them.
>>>>
>>>>> +       int do_read;
>>>>> +       __u8 *dir_ptr;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __u8 is used in a whole fat code, and also as a directory entry buffer,
>>> so
>>> why not to keep the whole code style?
>>
>>
>> OK, sounds good.
>>
>> Do you have any ideas on the bug I reported?
>>
>
> No, but I think that this is not any fat issue.

Can you explain what you mean here? What other software could be causing this?

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [PATCH] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

Hello,

On 12/18/2014 03:56 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 18 December 2014 at 07:40, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 03:34 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Przemyslaw,
>>>
>>> On 18 December 2014 at 07:32, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> On 12/18/2014 02:47 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11 December 2014 at 05:01, Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
>>>>>> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
>>>>>> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
>>>>>> the we have two cases:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Case 1:
>>>>>> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
>>>>>> for long file name is in the buffer.
>>>>>> - Read OK!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Case 2:
>>>>>> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
>>>>>> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
>>>>>> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
>>>>>> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
>>>>>> - Read fail!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This commit fixes this issue by:
>>>>>> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
>>>>>> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>>>>>>      before the read of two next
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
>>>>>> which works good as previous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov <lebon@lebon.org.ua>
>>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>>> Cc: Suriyan Ramasami <suriyan.r@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     fs/fat/fat.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chomium.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c
>>>>>> index 04a51db..afbf12d 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/fat/fat.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/fat/fat.c
>>>>>> @@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t
>>>>>> pos,
>>>>>> void *buffer,
>>>>>>            int ret = -1;
>>>>>>            int firsttime;
>>>>>>            __u32 root_cluster = 0;
>>>>>> +       __u32 read_blk;
>>>>>>            int rootdir_size = 0;
>>>>>> -       int j;
>>>>>> +       int j, k;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is k? Can we use a proper variable name? Also for j. That might
>>>>> save needing a comment for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> +       int do_read;
>>>>>> +       __u8 *dir_ptr;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does it use __u8 instead of u8 or uint8_t for example?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __u8 is used in a whole fat code, and also as a directory entry buffer,
>>>> so
>>>> why not to keep the whole code style?
>>>
>>>
>>> OK, sounds good.
>>>
>>> Do you have any ideas on the bug I reported?
>>>
>>
>> No, but I think that this is not any fat issue.
>
> Can you explain what you mean here? What other software could be causing this?
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>

The fat code is quite unreadable, but it is simple.
Passing the "/syslinux/..//bcm2835-rpi-b-rev2.dtb" as the fatload 
argument is just treat as a "/syslinux" directory which doesn't exists.
So the file can't be read, right?

Best regards,
-- 
Przemyslaw Marczak
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics
p.marczak at samsung.com

[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.

This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.

If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
the we have two cases:

Case 1:
Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!

Case 2:
The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!

This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
  before the read of two next

The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
which works good as previous.

Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov <lebon@lebon.org.ua>
Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Cc: Suriyan Ramasami <suriyan.r@gmail.com>
Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>

---
Changes v2:
- add more expressive variable names
- add code comment to the patch change
---
 fs/fat/fat.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c
index 04a51db..bccc3e3 100644
--- a/fs/fat/fat.c
+++ b/fs/fat/fat.c
@@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 	int ret = -1;
 	int firsttime;
 	__u32 root_cluster = 0;
+	__u32 read_blk;
 	int rootdir_size = 0;
-	int j;
+	int buffer_blk_cnt;
+	int do_read;
+	__u8 *dir_ptr;
 
 	if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) {
 		debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");
@@ -909,24 +912,54 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 		isdir = 1;
 	}
 
-	j = 0;
+	buffer_blk_cnt = 0;
+	firsttime = 1;
 	while (1) {
 		int i;
 
-		if (j == 0) {
-			debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n",
-				cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
+		if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || firsttime) {
+			dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;
+			firsttime = 0;
+		} else {
+			/**
+			 * FAT16 sector buffer modification:
+			 * Each loop, the second buffered block is moved to
+			 * the buffer begin, and two next sectors are read
+			 * next to the previously moved one. So the sector
+			 * buffer keeps always 3 sectors for fat16.
+			 * And the current sector is the buffer second sector
+			 * beside the "firsttime" read, when it is the first one.
+			 *
+			 * PREFETCH_BLOCKS is 2 for FAT16 == loop[0:1]
+			 * n = computed root dir sector
+			 * loop |  cursect-1  | cursect    | cursect+1  |
+			 *   0  |  sector n+0 | sector n+1 | none       |
+			 *   1  |  none       | sector n+0 | sector n+1 |
+			 *   0  |  sector n+1 | sector n+2 | sector n+3 |
+			 *   1  |  sector n+3 | ...
+			*/
+			dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block + mydata->sect_size);
+			memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr, mydata->sect_size);
+		}
+
+		do_read = 1;
+
+		if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && buffer_blk_cnt)
+			do_read = 0;
+
+		if (do_read) {
+			read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
+				    mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;
+
+			debug("FAT read(sect=%d, cnt:%d), clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n",
+				cursect, read_blk, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
 
-			if (disk_read(cursect,
-					(mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
-					(mydata->clust_size) :
-					PREFETCH_BLOCKS,
-					do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
+			if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) {
 				debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n");
 				goto exit;
 			}
 
-			dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
+			dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr;
 		}
 
 		for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {
@@ -951,7 +984,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 
 					get_vfatname(mydata,
 						     root_cluster,
-						     do_fat_read_at_block,
+						     dir_ptr,
 						     dentptr, l_name);
 
 					if (dols == LS_ROOT) {
@@ -1062,7 +1095,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 
 			goto rootdir_done;	/* We got a match */
 		}
-		debug("END LOOP: j=%d   clust_size=%d\n", j,
+		debug("END LOOP: buffer_blk_cnt=%d   clust_size=%d\n", buffer_blk_cnt,
 		       mydata->clust_size);
 
 		/*
@@ -1070,10 +1103,10 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 		 * root directory clusters when a cluster has been
 		 * completely processed.
 		 */
-		++j;
+		++buffer_blk_cnt;
 		int rootdir_end = 0;
 		if (mydata->fatsize == 32) {
-			if (j == mydata->clust_size) {
+			if (buffer_blk_cnt == mydata->clust_size) {
 				int nxtsect = 0;
 				int nxt_clust = 0;
 
@@ -1086,11 +1119,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 				root_cluster = nxt_clust;
 
 				cursect = nxtsect;
-				j = 0;
+				buffer_blk_cnt = 0;
 			}
 		} else {
-			if (j == PREFETCH_BLOCKS)
-				j = 0;
+			if (buffer_blk_cnt == PREFETCH_BLOCKS)
+				buffer_blk_cnt = 0;
 
 			rootdir_end = (++cursect - mydata->rootdir_sect >=
 				       rootdir_size);
-- 
1.9.1

[U-Boot] [PATCH v3] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Przemyslaw Marczak]

The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.

This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.

If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
the we have two cases:

Case 1:
Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
for long file name is in the buffer.
- Read OK!

Case 2:
The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
- Read fail!

This commit fixes this issue by:
- read two sectors after loop on each single is done
- keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
  before the read of two next

The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
which works good as previous.

Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov <lebon@lebon.org.ua>
Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Cc: Suriyan Ramasami <suriyan.r@gmail.com>
Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Tested-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chomium.org>

---
Changes v2:
- add more expressive variable names
- add code comment to the patch change

Changes v3:
- add Tested-by
---
 fs/fat/fat.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/fat/fat.c b/fs/fat/fat.c
index 04a51db..bccc3e3 100644
--- a/fs/fat/fat.c
+++ b/fs/fat/fat.c
@@ -823,8 +823,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 	int ret = -1;
 	int firsttime;
 	__u32 root_cluster = 0;
+	__u32 read_blk;
 	int rootdir_size = 0;
-	int j;
+	int buffer_blk_cnt;
+	int do_read;
+	__u8 *dir_ptr;
 
 	if (read_bootsectandvi(&bs, &volinfo, &mydata->fatsize)) {
 		debug("Error: reading boot sector\n");
@@ -909,24 +912,54 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 		isdir = 1;
 	}
 
-	j = 0;
+	buffer_blk_cnt = 0;
+	firsttime = 1;
 	while (1) {
 		int i;
 
-		if (j == 0) {
-			debug("FAT read sect=%d, clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n",
-				cursect, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
+		if (mydata->fatsize == 32 || firsttime) {
+			dir_ptr = do_fat_read_at_block;
+			firsttime = 0;
+		} else {
+			/**
+			 * FAT16 sector buffer modification:
+			 * Each loop, the second buffered block is moved to
+			 * the buffer begin, and two next sectors are read
+			 * next to the previously moved one. So the sector
+			 * buffer keeps always 3 sectors for fat16.
+			 * And the current sector is the buffer second sector
+			 * beside the "firsttime" read, when it is the first one.
+			 *
+			 * PREFETCH_BLOCKS is 2 for FAT16 == loop[0:1]
+			 * n = computed root dir sector
+			 * loop |  cursect-1  | cursect    | cursect+1  |
+			 *   0  |  sector n+0 | sector n+1 | none       |
+			 *   1  |  none       | sector n+0 | sector n+1 |
+			 *   0  |  sector n+1 | sector n+2 | sector n+3 |
+			 *   1  |  sector n+3 | ...
+			*/
+			dir_ptr = (do_fat_read_at_block + mydata->sect_size);
+			memcpy(do_fat_read_at_block, dir_ptr, mydata->sect_size);
+		}
+
+		do_read = 1;
+
+		if (mydata->fatsize == 32 && buffer_blk_cnt)
+			do_read = 0;
+
+		if (do_read) {
+			read_blk = (mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
+				    mydata->clust_size : PREFETCH_BLOCKS;
+
+			debug("FAT read(sect=%d, cnt:%d), clust_size=%d, DIRENTSPERBLOCK=%zd\n",
+				cursect, read_blk, mydata->clust_size, DIRENTSPERBLOCK);
 
-			if (disk_read(cursect,
-					(mydata->fatsize == 32) ?
-					(mydata->clust_size) :
-					PREFETCH_BLOCKS,
-					do_fat_read_at_block) < 0) {
+			if (disk_read(cursect, read_blk, dir_ptr) < 0) {
 				debug("Error: reading rootdir block\n");
 				goto exit;
 			}
 
-			dentptr = (dir_entry *) do_fat_read_at_block;
+			dentptr = (dir_entry *)dir_ptr;
 		}
 
 		for (i = 0; i < DIRENTSPERBLOCK; i++) {
@@ -951,7 +984,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 
 					get_vfatname(mydata,
 						     root_cluster,
-						     do_fat_read_at_block,
+						     dir_ptr,
 						     dentptr, l_name);
 
 					if (dols == LS_ROOT) {
@@ -1062,7 +1095,7 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 
 			goto rootdir_done;	/* We got a match */
 		}
-		debug("END LOOP: j=%d   clust_size=%d\n", j,
+		debug("END LOOP: buffer_blk_cnt=%d   clust_size=%d\n", buffer_blk_cnt,
 		       mydata->clust_size);
 
 		/*
@@ -1070,10 +1103,10 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 		 * root directory clusters when a cluster has been
 		 * completely processed.
 		 */
-		++j;
+		++buffer_blk_cnt;
 		int rootdir_end = 0;
 		if (mydata->fatsize == 32) {
-			if (j == mydata->clust_size) {
+			if (buffer_blk_cnt == mydata->clust_size) {
 				int nxtsect = 0;
 				int nxt_clust = 0;
 
@@ -1086,11 +1119,11 @@ int do_fat_read_at(const char *filename, loff_t pos, void *buffer,
 				root_cluster = nxt_clust;
 
 				cursect = nxtsect;
-				j = 0;
+				buffer_blk_cnt = 0;
 			}
 		} else {
-			if (j == PREFETCH_BLOCKS)
-				j = 0;
+			if (buffer_blk_cnt == PREFETCH_BLOCKS)
+				buffer_blk_cnt = 0;
 
 			rootdir_end = (++cursect - mydata->rootdir_sect >=
 				       rootdir_size);
-- 
1.9.1

[U-Boot] [U-Boot,v3] fs: fat: read: fix fat16 ls/read issue

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 05:14:17PM +0100, Przemyslaw Marczak wrote:

> The present fat implementation ignores FAT16 long name
> directory entries which aren't placed in a single sector.
> 
> This was becouse of the buffer was always filled by the
> two sectors, and the loop was made also for two sectors.
> 
> If some file long name entries are stored in two sectors,
> the we have two cases:
> 
> Case 1:
> Both of sectors are in the buffer - all required data
> for long file name is in the buffer.
> - Read OK!
> 
> Case 2:
> The current directory entry is placed at the end of the
> second buffered sector. And the next entries are placed
> in a sector which is not buffered yet. Then two next
> sectors are buffered and the mentioned entry is ignored.
> - Read fail!
> 
> This commit fixes this issue by:
> - read two sectors after loop on each single is done
> - keep the last used sector as a first in the buffer
>   before the read of two next
> 
> The commit doesn't affects the fat32 imlementation,
> which works good as previous.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Przemyslaw Marczak <p.marczak@samsung.com>
> Cc: Mikhail Zolotaryov <lebon@lebon.org.ua>
> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@ti.com>
> Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> Cc: Suriyan Ramasami <suriyan.r@gmail.com>
> Cc: Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>
> Cc: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
> Tested-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chomium.org>

Applied to u-boot/master, thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20150107/db7b8b15/attachment.pgp>