| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
[Artem: re-worked the patch: made it release resources when the
module is unloaded, made it do module referencing, made it really
independent on UBI, tested it with the UBI test-suite which can
be found in ubi-2.6.git/tests/ubi-tests, re-named most of the
funcs/variables to get rid of the "ubi" word and make names
consistent.]
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Pervushin <dpervushin@embeddedalley.com>
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
|
|
Get rid of 'do_div()' and use more user-friendly primitives from
'linux/math64.h'.
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
|
|
MTD internal API presently uses 32-bit values to represent
device size. This patch updates them to 64-bits but leaves
the external API unchanged. Extending the external API
is a separate issue for several reasons. First, no one
needs it at the moment. Secondly, whether the implementation
is done with IOCTLs, sysfs or both is still debated. Thirdly
external API changes require the internal API to be accepted
first.
Note that although the MTD API will be able to support 64-bit
device sizes, existing drivers do not and are not required
to do so, although NAND base has been updated.
In general, changing from 32-bit to 64-bit values cause little
or no changes to the majority of the code with the following
exceptions:
- printk message formats
- division and modulus of 64-bit values
- NAND base support
- 32-bit local variables used by mtdpart and mtdconcat
- naughtily assuming one structure maps to another
in MEMERASE ioctl
Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <ext-adrian.hunter@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@intel.com>
|
|
Just out or curiousity ran checkpatch.pl for whole UBI,
and discovered there are quite a few of stylistic issues.
Fix them.
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
|
|
The ubi_err() macro will add \n.
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
|
|
I came across a problem which seems to be present since:
commit 941dfb07ed91451b1c58626a0d258dfdf468b593
UBI: set correct gluebi device size
ubi_create_gluebi() leaves mtd->size = 0 for static volumes. So even
existing static volumes are initialized with a size of 0.
Signed-off-by: Jan Altenberg <jan.altenberg@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
|
|
Pass volume description object to the EBA function which makes
more sense, and EBA function do not have to find the volume
description object by volume ID.
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
|
|
In case of static volumes, make emulated MTD device size to
be equivalent to data size, rather then volume size.
Reported-by: John Smith <john@arrows.demon.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
|
|
UBI (Latin: "where?") manages multiple logical volumes on a single
flash device, specifically supporting NAND flash devices. UBI provides
a flexible partitioning concept which still allows for wear-levelling
across the whole flash device.
In a sense, UBI may be compared to the Logical Volume Manager
(LVM). Whereas LVM maps logical sector numbers to physical HDD sector
numbers, UBI maps logical eraseblocks to physical eraseblocks.
More information may be found at
http://www.linux-mtd.infradead.org/doc/ubi.html
Partitioning/Re-partitioning
An UBI volume occupies a certain number of erase blocks. This is
limited by a configured maximum volume size, which could also be
viewed as the partition size. Each individual UBI volume's size can
be changed independently of the other UBI volumes, provided that the
sum of all volume sizes doesn't exceed a certain limit.
UBI supports dynamic volumes and static volumes. Static volumes are
read-only and their contents are protected by CRC check sums.
Bad eraseblocks handling
UBI transparently handles bad eraseblocks. When a physical
eraseblock becomes bad, it is substituted by a good physical
eraseblock, and the user does not even notice this.
Scrubbing
On a NAND flash bit flips can occur on any write operation,
sometimes also on read. If bit flips persist on the device, at first
they can still be corrected by ECC, but once they accumulate,
correction will become impossible. Thus it is best to actively scrub
the affected eraseblock, by first copying it to a free eraseblock
and then erasing the original. The UBI layer performs this type of
scrubbing under the covers, transparently to the UBI volume users.
Erase Counts
UBI maintains an erase count header per eraseblock. This frees
higher-level layers (like file systems) from doing this and allows
for centralized erase count management instead. The erase counts are
used by the wear-levelling algorithm in the UBI layer. The algorithm
itself is exchangeable.
Booting from NAND
For booting directly from NAND flash the hardware must at least be
capable of fetching and executing a small portion of the NAND
flash. Some NAND flash controllers have this kind of support. They
usually limit the window to a few kilobytes in erase block 0. This
"initial program loader" (IPL) must then contain sufficient logic to
load and execute the next boot phase.
Due to bad eraseblocks, which may be randomly scattered over the
flash device, it is problematic to store the "secondary program
loader" (SPL) statically. Also, due to bit-flips it may become
corrupted over time. UBI allows to solve this problem gracefully by
storing the SPL in a small static UBI volume.
UBI volumes vs. static partitions
UBI volumes are still very similar to static MTD partitions:
* both consist of eraseblocks (logical eraseblocks in case of UBI
volumes, and physical eraseblocks in case of static partitions;
* both support three basic operations - read, write, erase.
But UBI volumes have the following advantages over traditional
static MTD partitions:
* there are no eraseblock wear-leveling constraints in case of UBI
volumes, so the user should not care about this;
* there are no bit-flips and bad eraseblocks in case of UBI volumes.
So, UBI volumes may be considered as flash devices with relaxed
restrictions.
Where can it be found?
Documentation, kernel code and applications can be found in the MTD
gits.
What are the applications for?
The applications help to create binary flash images for two purposes: pfi
files (partial flash images) for in-system update of UBI volumes, and plain
binary images, with or without OOB data in case of NAND, for a manufacturing
step. Furthermore some tools are/and will be created that allow flash content
analysis after a system has crashed..
Who did UBI?
The original ideas, where UBI is based on, were developed by Andreas
Arnez, Frank Haverkamp and Thomas Gleixner. Josh W. Boyer and some others
were involved too. The implementation of the kernel layer was done by Artem
B. Bityutskiy. The user-space applications and tools were written by Oliver
Lohmann with contributions from Frank Haverkamp, Andreas Arnez, and Artem.
Joern Engel contributed a patch which modifies JFFS2 so that it can be run on
a UBI volume. Thomas Gleixner did modifications to the NAND layer. Alexander
Schmidt made some testing work as well as core functionality improvements.
Signed-off-by: Artem B. Bityutskiy <dedekind@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Frank Haverkamp <haver@vnet.ibm.com>
|
