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

Reply via email to