Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOuPNLjzyG_2wGDYmwgeoQuuQ7cykJ11THf8jMrOFXZ7vXheJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOuPNLh_KY4NaVWSEV2JPp8fx0iy8E1MU8GHT-w7-hMXrvSaeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1556211076.48404.1626763215205.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <CAOuPNLhti3tocN-_D7Q0QaAx5acHpb3AQyWaUKgQPNW3XWu58g@mail.gmail.com>
 <2132615832.4458.1626900868118.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <CAOuPNLhCMT7QTF+QadJyGDFNshH9VjEAzWStRpe8itw7HXve=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFLxGvywv29u6DJZrJxnJJmUDSQ4xpbT0u5LNKY1uGKyQom+WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAEAJfCY+X-G=7Oe9NqrJ4yQZ29DBA78jOFAX44GD0g6=s7qhg@mail.gmail.com> <1668790824.35266.1627559144878.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
In-Reply-To: <1668790824.35266.1627559144878.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
From:   Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jul 2021 09:03:26 -0300
Message-ID: <CAAEAJfDDtGcUquyP7Jn0Urttt4kSfAQbJ_qPQ90ROtWLavW9EA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: MTD: How to get actual image size from MTD partition
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc:     Pintu Agarwal <pintu.ping@gmail.com>,
        Kernelnewbies <kernelnewbies@kernelnewbies.org>,
        Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        Sean Nyekjaer <sean@geanix.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Phillip Lougher <phillip@squashfs.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 at 08:45, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
>
> Ezequiel,
>
> ----- Urspr=C3=BCngliche Mail -----
> > [snip]
> >
> > Ouch, so surprised that after all these years someone is doing squashfs=
/mtdblock
> > instead of using ubiblock :-)
> >
> > Can we patch either Kconfig or add some warn_once on mtdblock
> > usage, suggesting to use ubiblock instead?
>
> a hint in Kconfig makes IMHO sense. Do you want to send a patch?
> A warning is too much since on some tiny embedded system with NOR flash m=
tdblock is still
> a good choice.
> ubiblock is mostly useful for NAND flash.
>
> > I remember there was still some use case(s) for mtdblock but I can't re=
member
> > now what was it, perhaps we should document the expectations?
> > (Is that for JFFS2 to mount?)
>
> a long time ago mount didn't accept character devices, so you had to pass=
 mtdblockX to mount
> JFFS2.
> This limitation is gone.
>

OK, let me try to cook a patch for you.

Eze