Hi Nick, > looks like it has bad blocks too and they and made the files bigger in > size than the partition..???
No, I don't think so. > Image 3784704 bytes, NAND page 512 bytes, OOB area 512 bytes, device size > 3670016 bytes ... > Image 270336 bytes, NAND page 512 bytes, OOB area 512 bytes, device size > 262144 bytes ... > Image 270336 bytes, NAND page 512 bytes, OOB area 512 bytes, device size > 262144 bytes ... > Image 29196288 bytes, NAND page 512 bytes, OOB area 512 bytes, device size > 28311552 bytes 3784704 - 3670016 = 114,688 114,688 / 1024 = 112 3670016 / 1024 / 32 = 112 3784704 / 3670016 = 1.03125 270336 - 262144 = 8,192 8,192 / 1024 = 8 262144 / 1024 / 32 = 8 270336 / 262144 = 1.03125 29196288 - 28311552 = 884,736 884,736 / 1024 = 864 28311552 / 1024 / 32 = 864 29196288 / 28311552 = 1.03125 1 / (1.03125 - 1) = 32 The image is always the same factor bigger than the device size, 1/32th, suggesting a consistent overhead in the data format. -- Cheers, Ralph. _______________________________________________ e3-hacking mailing list e3-hacking@earth.li https://www.earth.li/mailman/listinfo/e3-hacking