questions about kernel patches - especially <mtdblock-jz>-related - binary code inside?

Mirko Vogt lists at nanl.de
Wed Aug 5 09:09:14 EDT 2009


On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:39 +0200, Mirko Vogt wrote:
> Afterwards I took a look at the patchset adjusted to work with kernel
> 2.6.28 and openwrt[1] - done by marek, xiangfu and florian to see,
> whether they found the source, just took the binary code over, purged it
> out, etc.
> 
> Looking at 200-drivers.patch[3] (line 11588), I have no clue what
> happened :)
> 
> There is no ELF-file "mtdblock-jz.o.original" created - so far so good!
> But there's another file touched (drivers/mtd/mtdblock-jz.uu) - which
> isn't by the oringinal patch by ingenic and also does not look like
> source code (line 11588).
> 
> {{{
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdblock-jz.uu
> @@ -0,0 +1,535 @@
> +begin 644 mtdblock-jz.o
> +M?T5,1@$!`0````````````$`"``!```````````````T-0```1``4#0[..]
> }}}
> 

Ok, at least this mystery seems to be solved.
Older patches provided by ingenic contain the <mtdblock-jz.uu> file,
newer patches (like the one I looked into) the <mtdblock-jz.o.original>
file.

So it seems that the patchset-2.6.28 in the openwrt-xburst git is based
on an older version of the ingenic patch than the one I looked into.

However, to me there still seems to be binary code with no sourcecode
available and there's still the first set of questions:

> a) is there a reason why there's binary code within the kernel patch?
> b) is there source available?
> c) what's the difference between mtdblock-jz and the vanilla mtdblock?

Greets

mirko

-- 
This email address is used for mailinglist purposes only.
Non-mailinglist emails will be dropped automatically.
If you want to get in contact with me personally, please mail to:
mirko.vogt <at> nanl <dot> de





More information about the discussion mailing list


interactive