[meta-xilinx] [PATCH] zcu102-zynqmp.conf: Add parameters for UBI filesystem creation

[Nathan Rossi]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans at topic.nl> wrote:
>
> On 17-08-16 15:51, Nathan Rossi wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans at topic.nl> wrote:
> >> Provide the data that the UBI tools need to create filesystems for
> >> the zcu102 board.
> >>
> >> (Note that the QSPI drivers for the Zynq and the ZynqMP do not work
> >> properly when in parallel mode, so the resulting filesystem cannot
> >> actually be mounted yet.)
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Mike Looijmans <mike.looijmans at topic.nl>
> >> ---
> >>   conf/machine/zcu102-zynqmp.conf | 6 ++++++
> >>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/conf/machine/zcu102-zynqmp.conf b/conf/machine/zcu102-zynqmp.conf
> >> index b2bb9dc..c0f8196 100644
> >> --- a/conf/machine/zcu102-zynqmp.conf
> >> +++ b/conf/machine/zcu102-zynqmp.conf
> >> @@ -24,3 +24,9 @@ EXTRA_IMAGEDEPENDS += "\
> >>
> >>   # The xczu9eg has a MALI GPU
> >>   MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RRECOMMENDS += "kernel-module-mali"
> >> +
> >> +# Use QSPI flash with 128k sector size
> >> +MKUBIFS_ARGS = "-m 1 -e 131200 -c 952"
> >
> > "-e 128KiB" is valid with mkfs.ubifs.
>
> I don't know, would that yield the same result? 128KiB = 131072
>
> Hmm, something is goofy here, I would have expected 131072-128 = 130944

Sorry I did the math wrong (I did 131200 / 1024 in integer mode :|).
If this is what mtdinfo is spitting out it should be good.

>
>
> >> +UBINIZE_ARGS = "-m 1 -p 128KiB"
> >> +UBI_VOLNAME = "qspi-rootfs"
> >
> > Is the custom volname set for a specific reason? if yes this patch
> > should probably use the multiubi type with the name "qspi" to allow
> > for ubifs use with other flash devices on the board?
>
> No particular reason for anything, I just ran some ubi commands on the target
> and copied the results into the recipe like always.
>
> At least, I think I did. Apparently not, because the mkfs args are plain wrong...

The only issue I have with putting this in is that Xilinx might change
which flash chip they use on different revisions of the board
(pre-production vs production etc.). So it might be worth using the
multiubi type and having the name match the device that is used? or is
it expected that this board will only ever use this flash device or
equivalent versions of it?

Regards,
Nathan