[OpenWrt-Devel] build: sysupgrade: kernel: mtd: Image too SMALL to Restore Config

[Jeff Kletsky]

Thanks! Blocksize turned out to be the issue -- resolved for the devices 
in question.

I'm still interested in finding out where the definition of the 
"default" sysupgrade.img
is found in make files of the build system.

Jeff


On 7/1/19 1:47 PM, Hannu Nyman wrote:
>> The smaller, "failing" image contains in /dev/mtd2:
>
>> 003eebd0 00 01 59 5a be e7 20 00  00 00 00 00 04 80 00 00  |..YZ.. 
>> .........|
>> 003eebe0  00 00 dc eb 20 00 00 00  00 00 ff ff ff ff ff ff |.... 
>> ...........|
>> 003eebf0  ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff  ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 
>> |................|
>> *
>> 00400000  19 85 20 03 00 00 00 0c  f0 60 dc 98 19 85 e0 01  |.. 
>> ......`......|
>> 00400010  00 00 00 36 5d 44 48 fe  00 00 00 01 00 00 00 00 
>> |...6]DH.........|
>> 00400020  00 00 00 02 00 00 00 00  0e 08 00 00 97 8f 0a 5b 
>> |...............[|
>> 00400030  31 ff 3d bc 73 79 73 75  70 67 72 61 64 65 2e 74 
>> |1.=.sysupgrade.t|
>
>
> The failure may actually be on the image sysupgrade appending logic 
> during sysupgrade/flash time, and not in the boot time logic. The 
> interesting part is that the appended sysupgrade data starts at 
> 0x400000 in both cases, eventhough the firmware image ends at 
> 0x3eb3710 in the failing case. In the failing case, there is thus an 
> extra 64 kB of empty 0xff before the appended sysupgrade.tgz, and that 
> possibly causes the sysupgrade archive detection problem at the boot 
> time (as the detection looks properly at 0x3f0000 based on the 
> split-detected jffs2 size and finds nothing).
>
> Possible mismatch in the eraseblock size detection? Maybe the 
> sysupgrade creation script or padjffs thinks that you have a 128 kB 
> erase block instead of 64 kB, and pads up to 0x400000 instead of 
> 0x3f0000, so that theer is no deadcode indicator at 0x3f0000.
>
> Your secondary NAND flash seems to have 128 kB block size?
>      spi-nand spi0.1: 128 MiB, block size: 128 KiB, page size: 2048, 
> OOB size: 128
>
> Any way that you get into picture here and create confusion about the 
> NOR flash block size?  Dual NOR/NAND flash systems are rare, which 
> could explain why nobody has stumbled into this earlier.

_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel