RTEMS | Ported LittleFS (!1064)

[Harshit Shivhare (@002harshit)]

Harshit Shivhare commented on a discussion on cpukit/libfs/src/littlefs/rtems-littlefs-init.c: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1064#note_142953

 > +  lfs_cfg->read = rtems_littlefs_bd_read;
 > +  lfs_cfg->prog = rtems_littlefs_bd_prog;
 > +  lfs_cfg->erase = rtems_littlefs_bd_erase;
 > +  lfs_cfg->sync = rtems_littlefs_bd_sync;
 > +  lfs_cfg->lock = rtems_littlefs_bd_lock;
 > +  lfs_cfg->unlock = rtems_littlefs_bd_unlock;
 > +
 > +  lfs_cfg->block_size = RTEMS_LITTLEFS_BLOCK_SIZE;
 > +  
 > +  lfs_cfg->block_count = 
 > +    (ctx->dd->size * ctx->dd->media_block_size) / lfs_cfg->block_size;
 > +
 > +  lfs_cfg->read_size = lfs_cfg->block_size;
 > +  lfs_cfg->prog_size = lfs_cfg->block_size;
 > +  lfs_cfg->cache_size = lfs_cfg->block_size;
 > +  lfs_cfg->lookahead_size = 16;

I would like to know your opinion. I am confused whether to keep a constant block_size or just let the user define it. 

One thing I would like to add is We do need the block_size of littlefs when mounting it and as far as I know we cant retrieve block_size until we mount it.

-- 
View it on GitLab: https://gitlab.rtems.org/rtems/rtos/rtems/-/merge_requests/1064#note_142953
You're receiving this email because of your account on gitlab.rtems.org.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/bugs/attachments/20260218/a0ea56c7/attachment-0001.htm>