Message-ID: <CAAQYJAuRGxBCqTLjz+K_ObJvgfnaS+1X++SkYd6d+epbFesU9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2017 11:08:52 +0200
From:   Andrea Adami <andrea.adami@...il.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:     Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>,
        Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@...il.com>,
        Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mtd: sharpsl: add sharpslpart MTD partition parser

RESEND (sorry for the HTML)

Boris,
thanks for having read it.

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> Marek, Andrea,
>
> Before we even start discussing minor improvements (like coding style),
> I'd like to discuss the sharp FTL and partition table format, and
> decide whether we want to have such an old FTL included in the kernel.
>
> Actually, that's the very reason I asked Andrea to post his series as
> soon as possible even if some things were not perfect.
>
> I'll try to document myself on the on-flash format of the FTL and
> partition table before giving a definitive opinion, but I have the
> feeling this ancient FTL is not 100% safe, and by accepting an old
> (maybe unreliable?) FTL we are setting a precedent, and refusing other
> (broken) proprietary/vendor FTLs will be almost impossible after that.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, and this FTL is really safe and can be used on other
> devices, that's why I'd like to understand how it works before giving
> my opinion.
>
I can't judge the work done by ARM/Sharp/Linaro 15 years ago...
I have only seen this on this PXA Sharp Zaurus SL series.

For the records, these are the GPL 2.4 sources
https://github.com/LinuxPDA/Sharp_FTL_2.4.20

>
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:07:47 +0200
> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On 04/15/2017 10:11 PM, Andrea Adami wrote:
>> > The Sharp SL Series (Zaurus) PXA handhelds have 16/64/128M of NAND flash
>> > and share the same layout of the first 7M partition, managed by Sharp FTL.
>> >
>> > The purpose of this self-contained patch is to add a common parser and
>> > remove the hardcoded sizes in the board files (these devices are not yet
>> > converted to devicetree).
>> > Users will have benefits because the mtdparts= tag will not be necessary
>> > anymore and they will be free to repartition the little sized flash.
>> >
>> > The obsolete bootloader can not pass the partitioning info to modern
>> > kernels anymore so it has to be read from flash at known logical addresses.
>> > (see http://www.h5.dion.ne.jp/~rimemoon/zaurus/memo_006.htm )
>
>
> Okay, IMO that's not really a good argument to support this partition
> parser. As Richard and I already mentioned several times, if your
> bootloader is not capable of passing valid mtdparts= you can hardcode
> it in the kernel using a default CMDLINE.
>
We are simply trying to restore the ability for the kernel to read the mtdparts.

There are around many kernels and distros (OpenEmbedded, Arch, older 2.x stuff).
Some do require to repartition: how can I know how other people partitioned?

> Now, I understand that you want to support multiple devices with the
> same kernel, and having this partition parser would simplify your job.
> I also know you are developing a 2nd stage bootloader (based on
> kexec+a minimal initramfs) to address the limitations of the
> non-upgradable 1st stage bootloader.
>
> According to the rest of the description, you already have user-space
> tools to manipulate the partition-table and those are aware of the FTL
> layer, so I think you have all the basic blocks to get rid of this
> in-kernel implementation.
>
> All you need is a way to extract the partitions from the 2nd stage
> bootloader (using some tools you have in your initramfs) and build the
> according mtdparts= parameter to pass to kexec when booting the real
> kernel (the one used by the system).
>

We have patched kexecboot long ago to do that.
https://github.com/kexecboot/kexecboot/blob/master/machine/zaurus.c

This is done with a special kernel (linux-kexecboot) embedding the
minimal cpio and acting as 2nd stage bootloader.
It passes the mtdparts found in cmdline and does the extra trick of
reading it from mtd1 for zaurus.
You can even customize the cmdline in /boot/boot.cfg and hack the
mtdparts there.

Neverthless, what you don't seem to understand is that I cannot force
people to use kexecboot or to customize cmdline parts as I like...
I do just build kernels and images for testing...I maintain the OE
build infrastructure, not one distro.
> You tried to explain why it was not doable, but I still don't see
> why.
> You first said that not all systems had CONFIG_MTD_CMDLINE_PARTS
> enabled and that some people were booting distro kernels. Honestly, I
> think you have more chances to have CONFIG_MTD_CMDLINE_PARTS in those
> distro kernels than having your custom FTL enabled.
> Then you tried to explain that with the user-space only solution you
> wouldn't be able to support systems where the user had resized the
> partitions with the nandlogical tool, and I still don't see why. Maybe
> you can give more details to explain why this is impossible.

I don't understand why people should get crazy with the different
mtdparts= for each model.
IMHO we are restoring a basic functionality, anything weird.

>
> Just going through all these details to say that, IMO, we should only
> consider inclusion of this feature if we think it's safe, because I
> think all that is done here can be done from user-space.
>
Read only is safe.

> One last thing I was wondering. You said you want to keep existing
> partitioning unchanged, but I'd recommend to just drop the existing
> partitioning and have a single 121MB partition with UBI on it.
> This way you get support for UBI volumes, which is doing exactly what
> this FTL+partition-table is doing but in a standard/safe way.
> What is forcing you to keep the existing partitioning exactly?
>
Nothing is forcing me anymore after this patch!
People will do what they want: one big X11 distro or two little
console images, who knows...

In OpenEmbedded we do build tar.gz, jffs2, jffs2 sum, ubifs, ubi so
people have the choice.
Checkout some pictures: https://github.com/kexecboot/kexecboot/wiki/Screenshots

>> >
>> > In kernel, under arch/arm/mach-pxa we have already 8 machines:
>> > MACH_POODLE, MACH_CORGI, MACH_SHEPERD, MACH_HUSKY, MACH_AKITA, MACH_SPITZ,
>> > MACH_BORZOI, MACH_TOSA.
>> > Lost after the 2.4 vendor kernel are MACH_BOXER and MACH_TERRIER.
>> >
>> > Almost every model has different factory partitioning: add to this the
>> > units can be repartitioned by users with userspace tools (nandlogical)
>> > and installers for popular (back then) linux distributions.
>> >
>> > The Parameter Area in the first (boot) partition extends from 0x00040000 to
>> > 0x0007bfff (176k) and contains two copies of the partition table:
>> > ...
>> > 0x00060000: Partition Info1 16k
>> > 0x00064000: Partition Info2 16k
>> > 0x00668000: Model           16k
>> > ...
>> >
>> > The first 7M partition is managed by the Sharp FTL reserving 5% + 1 blocks
>> > for wear-leveling: some blocks are remapped and one layer of translation
>> > (logical to physical) is necessary.
>> >
>> > There isn't much documentation about this FTL in the 2.4 sources, just the
>> > MTD methods for reading and writing using logical addresses and the block
>> > management (wear-leveling, use counter).
>> > For the purpose of the MTD parser only the read part of the code was taken.
>> >
>> > The NAND drivers that can use this parser are sharpsl.c and tmio_nand.c.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Adami <andrea.adami@...il.com>
>
> I'll comment on the FTL and partition-table format later, after I had
> time to review it properly.
>
> In the meantime, I'd like other MTD maintainers to comment on my
> reply. Maybe I'm the only one to think that supporting
> old/unmaintainerd FTLs is a bad idea, and in this case I'll have to
> accept the situation ;-).
>
> Regards,
>
> Boris
Boris,

I am sorry you feel cornered.
I think there is a misunderstanding here: I need a partition parser, not a FTL.

Regards
Andrea

Powered by blists - more mailing lists