Why does the OS CE4.2 boot so slowly, when large numbers of datas in the nandflash?

Hello all:
My device is about S3C2440, it has a large page(2k byte/page)
nandflash, The OS is

WinCE4.2 and the BSP is SMDK2440, so My bootlaoders are nboot and
eboot.

If I store large numbers of datas in the nandflash, then restart the
device, the OS

CE4.2 boots so slowly, this will take up more than ten seconds. But if
the nandflash is

empty, or a small quantity of datas are stored in the nandflash, the OS
boots so quickly.

This was the serial port data during the boot:

Windows CE Kernel for ARM (Thumb Enabled) Built on Mar 13 2003 at
22:52:56
ProcessorType=0920 Revision=0
sp_abt=ffff5000 sp_irq=ffff2800 sp_undef=ffffc800 OEMAddressTable =
8c301480

Windows CE Firmware Init
INFO: Initializing system interrupts...
INFO: Initializing system clock(s)...
INFO: Initializing driver globals area...
OEMInit Done...
Sp=ffffc7cc
FMD::FMD_Init
FMD::FMD_Init Done ;;; here, it is waiting, and this will take
up most time.

The registry in the platform.reg used are as follows:

; Bind BINFS to the block driver
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\StorageManager\Profiles\FlashDrv]
"DefaultFileSystem"="BINFS"
"PartitionDriver"="mspart.dll"
"AutoMount"=dword:1
"AutoPart"=dword:1
"MountFlags"=dword:11
"Folder"="ResidentFlash"
"Name"="Microsoft Flash Disk"
"BootPhase"=dword:0

Why does the OS CE4.2 boot so slowly, when large numbers of datas in
the nandflash?

Perhaps, CE5.0 maybe has not this problem? Pls give me some advices.

Thanks a lot for your answers.

voidcoder
Mon Oct 30 02:40:54 CST 2006


Does it happen on *every* boot? Depending on the flash driver
implementation, this may be normal situation for the the first
boot since FMD is erasing/signing the unsigned flash blocks.
However something is going wrong if it does it on every boot.
Why not to put a breakpoint in your FMD_Init() and verify what
is going on there?


lljj462@tom.com wrote:
> Hello all:
> My device is about S3C2440, it has a large page(2k byte/page)
> nandflash, The OS is
>
> WinCE4.2 and the BSP is SMDK2440, so My bootlaoders are nboot and
> eboot.
>
> If I store large numbers of datas in the nandflash, then restart the
> device, the OS
>
> CE4.2 boots so slowly, this will take up more than ten seconds. But if
> the nandflash is
>
> empty, or a small quantity of datas are stored in the nandflash, the OS
> boots so quickly.
>
> This was the serial port data during the boot:
>
> Windows CE Kernel for ARM (Thumb Enabled) Built on Mar 13 2003 at
> 22:52:56
> ProcessorType=0920 Revision=0
> sp_abt=ffff5000 sp_irq=ffff2800 sp_undef=ffffc800 OEMAddressTable =
> 8c301480
>
> Windows CE Firmware Init
> INFO: Initializing system interrupts...
> INFO: Initializing system clock(s)...
> INFO: Initializing driver globals area...
> OEMInit Done...
> Sp=ffffc7cc
> FMD::FMD_Init
> FMD::FMD_Init Done ;;; here, it is waiting, and this will take
> up most time.
>
> The registry in the platform.reg used are as follows:
>
> ; Bind BINFS to the block driver
> [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\StorageManager\Profiles\FlashDrv]
> "DefaultFileSystem"="BINFS"
> "PartitionDriver"="mspart.dll"
> "AutoMount"=dword:1
> "AutoPart"=dword:1
> "MountFlags"=dword:11
> "Folder"="ResidentFlash"
> "Name"="Microsoft Flash Disk"
> "BootPhase"=dword:0
>
> Why does the OS CE4.2 boot so slowly, when large numbers of datas in
> the nandflash?
>
> Perhaps, CE5.0 maybe has not this problem? Pls give me some advices.
>
> Thanks a lot for your answers.
>

lljj462
Mon Oct 30 04:56:14 CST 2006


Thank you voidcoder.

The OS CE4.2 boots slowly every times, not the first time.

I wanna to know how to allow CE4.2 not to boot so slowly. Pls help me,
thanks a lot.

voidcoder
Mon Oct 30 05:02:48 CST 2006


I told you, do some debugging to find out where
exactly it blocks. Put a breakpoint to break at
FMD_Init() call and step it in debugger to find
the actual place ...


lljj462@tom.com wrote:
> Thank you voidcoder.
>
> The OS CE4.2 boots slowly every times, not the first time.
>
> I wanna to know how to allow CE4.2 not to boot so slowly. Pls help me,
> thanks a lot.
>