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
