[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ec40da4af0be445b9a1f2ed29e61a547@svr-chch-ex1.atlnz.lc>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 03:22:52 +0000
From: Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
To: "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com"
<boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Brian Norris" <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...ev4u.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] mtd: handle partitioning on devices with 0
erasesize
Hi,
On 02/06/17 15:21, Chris Packham wrote:
> erasesize is meaningful for flash devices but for SRAM there is no
> concept of an erase block so erasesize is set to 0. When partitioning
> these devices instead of ensuring partitions fall on erasesize
> boundaries we ensure they fall on writesize boundaries.
>
> Helped-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
I had someone mention to me in passing that mtdinfo was failing for them
(crashing with some floating point error). I'm wondering if we've
created a divide-by-zero problem by reporting 0 erase size in /proc/mtd.
I don't have any other info and right now I don't have access to the
system I had with the mchp23lcv1024 sram.
Andrew, do you still have access to your device?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists