From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC52C433F5 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:55:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21CC261178 for ; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:55:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S245459AbhKIK6b convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2021 05:58:31 -0500 Received: from relay8-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.201]:47721 "EHLO relay8-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S245454AbhKIK63 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Nov 2021 05:58:29 -0500 Received: (Authenticated sender: miquel.raynal@bootlin.com) by relay8-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E66621BF20A; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:55:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 11:55:39 +0100 From: Miquel Raynal To: Trevor Woerner Cc: Richard Weinberger , Ezequiel Garcia , linux-mtd , linux-kernel , Vignesh Raghavendra Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mtdblock: Advertise about UBI and UBI block Message-ID: <20211109115539.14e896b2@xps13> In-Reply-To: <20211028133119.GA21237@localhost> References: <20210801234509.18774-1-ezequiel@collabora.com> <20211026150350.GA5136@localhost> <876982414.38679.1635274892099.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <20211028133119.GA21237@localhost> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.7 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Trevor, Ezequiel, twoerner@gmail.com wrote on Thu, 28 Oct 2021 09:31:19 -0400: > On Tue 2021-10-26 @ 09:01:32 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > > Trevor, > > > > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > > > Von: "Trevor Woerner" > > > An: "Ezequiel Garcia" > > > CC: "linux-mtd" , "linux-kernel" , "richard" > > > , "Miquel Raynal" , "Vignesh Raghavendra" > > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 26. Oktober 2021 17:03:50 > > > Betreff: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mtdblock: Advertise about UBI and UBI block > > > > > On Sun 2021-08-01 @ 08:45:02 PM, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > >> Hi Richard, and everyone else: > > >> > > >> Browsing the internet for "JFFS2 mtd" results in tutorials, articles > > >> and github.gists0 that point to mtdblock. > > >> > > >> In fact, even the MTD wiki mentions that JFFS2 > > >> needs mtdblock to mount a rootfs: > > >> > > >> http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/faq/jffs2.html > > >> > > >> Moreover, I suspect there may be lots of users > > >> that still believe mtdblock is somehow needed to > > >> mount SquashFS. > > >> > > >> I've taken a verbose route and added a pr_warn > > >> warning if the devices are NAND. I don't think using > > >> NAND without UBI is too wise, and given the amount > > >> of outdated tutorials I believe some advertising > > >> will help. > > > > > > Not all NAND partitions on a device will contain linux root filesystems. For a > > > linux root filesystem perhaps using UBI/UBIFS is preferred, yet these messages > > > print out for each and every NAND partition: > > > > > > [ 0.900827] Creating 8 MTD partitions on "nxp_lpc3220_slc": > > > [ 0.906431] 0x000000000000-0x000000020000 : "bootrom" > > > [ 0.913523] mtdblock: MTD device 'bootrom' is NAND, please consider using UBI > > > block devices instead. > > > [ 0.933334] 0x000000020000-0x000000080000 : "uboot" > > > [ 0.940439] mtdblock: MTD device 'uboot' is NAND, please consider using UBI > > > block devices instead. > > > [ 0.963322] 0x000000080000-0x000000440000 : "fbkernel" > > > [ 0.970655] mtdblock: MTD device 'fbkernel' is NAND, please consider using > > > UBI block devices instead. > > > [ 0.993361] 0x000000440000-0x000000920000 : "fbrootfs" > > > [ 1.000725] mtdblock: MTD device 'fbrootfs' is NAND, please consider using > > > UBI block devices instead. > > > [ 1.023315] 0x000000920000-0x000000ce0000 : "c_kernel" > > > [ 1.030722] mtdblock: MTD device 'c_kernel' is NAND, please consider using > > > UBI block devices instead. > > > [ 1.053444] 0x000000ce0000-0x000000d00000 : "c__atags" > > > [ 1.060742] mtdblock: MTD device 'c__atags' is NAND, please consider using > > > UBI block devices instead. > > > [ 1.083349] 0x000000d00000-0x000001000000 : "c_rootfs" > > > [ 1.090702] mtdblock: MTD device 'c_rootfs' is NAND, please consider using > > > UBI block devices instead. > > > [ 1.113335] 0x000001000000-0x000020000000 : "mender" > > > [ 1.131627] mtdblock: MTD device 'mender' is NAND, please consider using UBI > > > block devices instead. > > > > > > NAND tends to be something found on older devices, the firmware/bootloaders > > > of older devices couldn't possibly understand UBI/UBIFS so many of these > > > partitions need be "raw" partitions, or use something that predates UBI. > > > > > > Ironically my "mender" partition contains a UBI (with multiple UBIFSes inside) > > > yet I got the same "please use UBI" message as all the others (lol) > > > > > > I'm specifying my partitions in DT with: > > > > > > partitions { > > > compatible = "fixed-partitions"; > > > #address-cells = <1>; > > > #size-cells = <1>; > > > > > > mtd0@0 { label = "bootrom"; reg = <0x00000000 0x00020000>; }; > > > mtd1@20000 { label = "uboot"; reg = <0x00020000 0x00060000>; }; > > > mtd2@80000 { label = "fbkernel"; reg = <0x00080000 0x003c0000>; }; > > > mtd3@440000 { label = "fbrootfs"; reg = <0x00440000 0x004e0000>; }; > > > mtd4@920000 { label = "c_kernel"; reg = <0x00920000 0x003c0000>; }; > > > mtd5@ce0000 { label = "c__atags"; reg = <0x00ce0000 0x00020000>; }; > > > mtd6@d00000 { label = "c_rootfs"; reg = <0x00d00000 0x00300000>; }; > > > mtd7@1000000 { label = "mender"; reg = <0x01000000 0x1f000000>; }; > > > }; > > > > > > which is why, I assume, I'm getting these messages. Is there a UBI-friendly > > > way to define them to avoid these messages? > > > > Hmm, maybe it makes sense to advertise it only once and not for each mtdblock device. > > Are there known bugs or issues using ubi/jffs2/squashfs on top of mtdblock? Is > mtdblock being deprecated? If so I could certainly understand warning users of > the situation. This message is not actually directed to people with old setups, but more to people creating new setups. I don't care if the loglevel is lowered to info, if you think this is better than a warning. Can someone please send a fix to display this message once? Thanks, Miquèl