Quantcast

Gumstix's UBIFS NAND image on Overo 512MB/512MB

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Gumstix's UBIFS NAND image on Overo 512MB/512MB

JamesAng
Hi,

I just laid my hand on a new Overo FE 512MB/512MB stick (R3119).

I've updated the MLO, U-Boot, Kernel and UBIFS (desktop-nand-image) Filesystem to the latest from Gumstix.

The amount of RAM and NAND detected during booting is correct at 512MB/512MB.

When I login to the console and check the freespace available, I got

root@overo:~# df -aTh        
Filesystem     Type          Size     Used  Avail  Use% Mounted on
rootfs             rootfs         230M   225M  4.2M  99%    /
ubi0:rootfs      ubifs          230M   225M  4.2M   99%   /
devtmpfs        devtmpfs   245M   208K   245M   1%   /dev
proc               proc          0           0        0         -       /proc
tmpfs             tmpfs        40K      0        40K      0%   /mnt/.splash
sysfs             sysfs        0           0        0         -        /sys
none              tmpfs        245M  208K  245M      1%    /dev
devpts           devpts       0     0     0   -  /dev/pts
usbfs             usbfs        0     0     0   -  /proc/bus/usb
tmpfs             tmpfs       245M  856K  244M   1% /var/volatile
tmpfs             tmpfs       245M     0  245M   0% /dev/shm
tmpfs             tmpfs        245M     0  245M   0% /media/ram

and for the amount of RAM

root@overo:~# free -bl
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:     513024000   72896512  440127488          0          0   34480128
Low:     513024000   72896512  440127488
High:            0          0          0
-/+ buffers/cache:   38416384  474607616
Swap:            0          0          0

The amount of freespace on the rootfs is less than 1%??!!! and the detected size is only 256MB??
On my other Overo FE 256MB/256MB, this is expected but with a 512MB NAND and the remaining space are gone??

I'm using Gumstix's script to write the UBIFS file and everything.

Anyone encountered this situation?

Or, do I need to build my own UBIFS nand-image and change some parameters in the recipe to get the full 512MB NAND?

Please advise.

Thanks.

James.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Gumstix's UBIFS NAND image on Overo 512MB/512MB

JamesAng
I might have found the solution to this..

I think it has to do with overo.conf setting for the UBIFS parameters.

I'll do a fresh bake and see if it is the cause of the missing 256MB.. (^^,)

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM, JamesAng <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I just laid my hand on a new Overo FE 512MB/512MB stick (R3119).

I've updated the MLO, U-Boot, Kernel and UBIFS (desktop-nand-image)
Filesystem to the latest from Gumstix.

The amount of RAM and NAND detected during booting is correct at
512MB/512MB.

When I login to the console and check the freespace available, I got

root@overo:~# df -aTh
Filesystem     Type          Size     Used  Avail  Use% Mounted on
rootfs             rootfs         230M   225M  4.2M  99%    /
ubi0:rootfs      ubifs          230M   225M  4.2M   99%   /
devtmpfs        devtmpfs   245M   208K   245M   1%   /dev
proc               proc          0           0        0         -
/proc
tmpfs             tmpfs        40K      0        40K      0%   /mnt/.splash
sysfs             sysfs        0           0        0         -        /sys
none              tmpfs        245M  208K  245M      1%    /dev
devpts           devpts       0     0     0   -  /dev/pts
usbfs             usbfs        0     0     0   -  /proc/bus/usb
tmpfs             tmpfs       245M  856K  244M   1% /var/volatile
tmpfs             tmpfs       245M     0  245M   0% /dev/shm
tmpfs             tmpfs        245M     0  245M   0% /media/ram

and for the amount of RAM

root@overo:~# free -bl
            total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:     513024000   72896512  440127488          0          0   34480128
Low:     513024000   72896512  440127488
High:            0          0          0
-/+ buffers/cache:   38416384  474607616
Swap:            0          0          0

The amount of freespace on the rootfs is less than 1%??!!! and the detected
size is only 256MB??
On my other Overo FE 256MB/256MB, this is expected but with a 512MB NAND and
the remaining space are gone??

I'm using Gumstix's script to write the UBIFS file and everything.

Anyone encountered this situation?

Or, do I need to build my own UBIFS nand-image and change some parameters in
the recipe to get the full 512MB NAND?

Please advise.

Thanks.

James.
--
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Gumstix%27s-UBIFS-NAND-image-on-Overo-512MB-512MB-tp32874764p32874764.html
Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
gumstix-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users



--
Regards,
James

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
gumstix-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

ADC on the Overo's WaterStorm

Keane, Ben (STRX)

Hi, 

 

I am wondering if anyone has some experience with using the ADC’s on the Overo Waterstorm Com’s or other coms that are the same?

 

I am using Scott Ellis’ example from http://www.jumpnowtek.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79&Itemid=91 and code from https://github.com/scottellis/madc on my Android system (from gumdroid – 2.6.32 kernel), but I am getting an error while trying to read ADC measurements:

 

# madc

madc[2]: status = -1

madc[3]: status = -1

madc[4]: status = -1

madc[5]: status = -1

madc[6]: status = -1

madc[7]: status = -1

 

 

Initially I thought it might have been because of the twl4030_pwrbutton misc input button driver causing a conflict because dmesg didn’t show i2c-1 but that power button instead, so I have removed that from the kernel and can now see:

 

# dmesg | grep i2c

i2c_omap i2c_omap.1: bus 1 rev4.0 at 2600 kHz

i2c_omap i2c_omap.3: bus 3 rev4.0 at 400 kHz

i2c /dev entries driver

--whereas before bus 1 was not there and the pwrbutton input was.

 

 

From looking at the twl4030-madc driver source (kernel/drivers/mfd/twl4030-madc.c) it looks like the timeout of 5ms is being reached… I am unsure why this is happening and how to correct this.  

 

Any suggestions in fixing this or doing ADC another way is greatly appreciated.

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

 

Ben Keane

 

 

 

 


PROPRIETARY: This e-mail contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is intended for the recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the authority by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or rely on this e-mail.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
gumstix-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: ADC on the Overo's WaterStorm

Keane, Ben (STRX)
Hi,
 
I have fixed my problem.  The status register was showing 0xDD and the timeout of 5ms was always being reached. The BUSY bit was never set. Thanks to google, old.nabble.com and Steve Sakoman posting a patch for twl4030-core.c which enables the MADC clocks (via the GPBR1 register) - http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Help-with-Overo-ADC-tt24174607.html#a24174607.  With version 2.6.32 kernel from gumdroid the patch is slightly different to the one posted. Which I will post below to help others in the future. 
 
Here's what it looks like working (all floating voltages except channel 7):
 
# madc
madc[ 2] raw =  457  voltage = 1.12
madc[ 3] raw =   53  voltage = 0.13
madc[ 4] raw =  611  voltage = 1.49
madc[ 5] raw =   47  voltage = 0.11
madc[ 6] raw =  217  voltage = 0.53
madc[ 7] raw =  560  voltage = 1.37
 
 
and this is the kernel patch for 2.6.32 for gumdroid:
 
 
user[hidden email] svn diff twl-core.c
Index: twl-core.c
===================================================================
--- twl-core.c (revision 9262)
+++ twl-core.c (working copy)
@@ -208,6 +208,7 @@
 
 /* Few power values */
 #define R_CFG_BOOT   0x05
+#define R_GPBR1   0x0C
 #define R_PROTECT_KEY   0x0E
 
 /* access control values for R_PROTECT_KEY */
@@ -215,6 +216,10 @@
 #define KEY_UNLOCK2   0xec
 #define KEY_LOCK   0x00
 
+/* MADC clock values for R_GPBR1 */
+#define MADC_HFCLK_EN   0x80
+#define DEFAULT_MADC_CLK_EN  0x10
+
 /* some fields in R_CFG_BOOT */
 #define HFCLK_FREQ_19p2_MHZ  (1 << 0)
 #define HFCLK_FREQ_26_MHZ  (2 << 0)
@@ -932,6 +937,12 @@
 
  e |= unprotect_pm_master();
  /* effect->MADC+USB ck en */
+
+ if (twl_has_madc())
+  e |= twl_i2c_write_u8(TWL4030_MODULE_INTBR,
+    MADC_HFCLK_EN | DEFAULT_MADC_CLK_EN, R_GPBR1);
+
+
  e |= twl_i2c_write_u8(TWL_MODULE_PM_MASTER, ctrl, R_CFG_BOOT);
  e |= protect_pm_master();
 
 
Maybe the clock initialisation should be moved into kernel/drivers/mfd/twl4030-madc.c in the twl4030_madc_probe() function - but I'm sure new kernels have completely changed everything and this works as it is.
 
 
Thanks (to Steve Sakoman for the kernel patch and Scott Ellis for the madc application),
 
 
Ben
 


From: Keane, Ben (STRX) [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2011 3:07 PM
To: General mailing list for gumstix users.
Subject: [Gumstix-users] ADC on the Overo's WaterStorm

Hi, 

 

I am wondering if anyone has some experience with using the ADC’s on the Overo Waterstorm Com’s or other coms that are the same?

 

I am using Scott Ellis’ example from http://www.jumpnowtek.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79&Itemid=91 and code from https://github.com/scottellis/madc on my Android system (from gumdroid – 2.6.32 kernel), but I am getting an error while trying to read ADC measurements:

 

# madc

madc[2]: status = -1

madc[3]: status = -1

madc[4]: status = -1

madc[5]: status = -1

madc[6]: status = -1

madc[7]: status = -1

 

 

Initially I thought it might have been because of the twl4030_pwrbutton misc input button driver causing a conflict because dmesg didn’t show i2c-1 but that power button instead, so I have removed that from the kernel and can now see:

 

# dmesg | grep i2c

i2c_omap i2c_omap.1: bus 1 rev4.0 at 2600 kHz

i2c_omap i2c_omap.3: bus 3 rev4.0 at 400 kHz

i2c /dev entries driver

--whereas before bus 1 was not there and the pwrbutton input was.

 

 

From looking at the twl4030-madc driver source (kernel/drivers/mfd/twl4030-madc.c) it looks like the timeout of 5ms is being reached… I am unsure why this is happening and how to correct this.  

 

Any suggestions in fixing this or doing ADC another way is greatly appreciated.

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

 

Ben Keane


PROPRIETARY: This e-mail contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is intended for the recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the authority by replying to this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or rely on this e-mail.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
gumstix-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Gumstix's UBIFS NAND image on Overo 512MB/512MB

David Abdurachmanov
In reply to this post by JamesAng

Have you managed to find a solution for this problem? Could you share it?
-david

Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 12:23:58 +0800
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] Gumstix's UBIFS NAND image on Overo 512MB/512MB

I might have found the solution to this..

I think it has to do with overo.conf setting for the UBIFS parameters.

I'll do a fresh bake and see if it is the cause of the missing 256MB.. (^^,)


On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM, JamesAng <[hidden email]> wrote:



Hi,



I just laid my hand on a new Overo FE 512MB/512MB stick (R3119).



I've updated the MLO, U-Boot, Kernel and UBIFS (desktop-nand-image)

Filesystem to the latest from Gumstix.



The amount of RAM and NAND detected during booting is correct at

512MB/512MB.



When I login to the console and check the freespace available, I got



root@overo:~# df -aTh

Filesystem á á Type á á á á áSize á á Used áAvail áUse% Mounted on

rootfs á á á á á á rootfs á á á á 230M á 225M á4.2M á99% á á/

ubi0:rootfs á á áubifs á á á á á230M á 225M á4.2M á 99% á /

devtmpfs á á á ádevtmpfs á 245M á 208K á 245M á 1% á /dev

proc á á á á á á á proc á á á á á0 á á á á á 0 á á á á0 á á á á -

/proc

tmpfs á á á á á á tmpfs á á á á40K á á á0 á á á á40K á á á0% á /mnt/.splash

sysfs á á á á á á sysfs á á á á0 á á á á á 0 á á á á0 á á á á - á á á á/sys

none á á á á á á átmpfs á á á á245M á208K á245M á á á1% á á/dev

devpts á á á á á devpts á á á 0 á á 0 á á 0 á - á/dev/pts

usbfs á á á á á á usbfs á á á á0 á á 0 á á 0 á - á/proc/bus/usb

tmpfs á á á á á á tmpfs á á á 245M á856K á244M á 1% /var/volatile

tmpfs á á á á á á tmpfs á á á 245M á á 0 á245M á 0% /dev/shm

tmpfs á á á á á á tmpfs á á á á245M á á 0 á245M á 0% /media/ram



and for the amount of RAM



root@overo:~# free -bl

 á á á á á á total á á á used á á á free á á shared á ábuffers á á cached

Mem: á á 513024000 á 72896512 á440127488 á á á á á0 á á á á á0 á 34480128

Low: á á 513024000 á 72896512 á440127488

High: á á á á á á0 á á á á á0 á á á á á0

-/+ buffers/cache: á 38416384 á474607616

Swap: á á á á á á0 á á á á á0 á á á á á0



The amount of freespace on the rootfs is less than 1%??!!! and the detected

size is only 256MB??

On my other Overo FE 256MB/256MB, this is expected but with a 512MB NAND and

the remaining space are gone??



I'm using Gumstix's script to write the UBIFS file and everything.



Anyone encountered this situation?



Or, do I need to build my own UBIFS nand-image and change some parameters in

the recipe to get the full 512MB NAND?



Please advise.



Thanks.



James.

--

View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Gumstix%27s-UBIFS-NAND-image-on-Overo-512MB-512MB-tp32874764p32874764.html


Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure

contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,

security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this

data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.

http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d

_______________________________________________

gumstix-users mailing list

[hidden email]

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users




--
Regards,
James


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
gumstix-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users     
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
gumstix-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Gumstix's UBIFS NAND image on Overo 512MB/512MB

JamesAng
Hi David,

David Abdurachmanov wrote
Have you managed to find a solution for this problem? Could you share it?
-david
Ops.. I forgotten to post back my finding.. (^^,)

The changes needed is in conf/machine/overo.conf.

-MKUBIFS_ARGS = "-m 2048 -e 129024 -c 1996"
+MKUBIFS_ARGS = "-m 2048 -e 129024 -c 4044"

That's all it takes!

WARNING:
This is hardcoding the configuration and 512MB image will not work in 256MB stick even if the total size is less than 256MB!

I don't know how to make the configuration 'smart' enough to select the correct arguments out of the 2 during bitbaking.
Either to create a new machine "overo-512" but I think is an overkill, or to have a separate OE branch for 512MB?

Gumstix folks might have a better idea/suggestion?

This change does not affect JFFS2 image nor is it needed .

James.
Loading...