• Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Login
  • Register
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: No USB sticks/drives recognized  (Read 2199 times)
digitlman
Newbie
*

Karma: 0
Posts: 22


View Profile
« on: August 08, 2009, 07:12:01 AM »

My plug will not see any USB devices.  I have tried multiple USB sticks and a WD USB drive.

I did get:

root@debian:~# sd 1:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through
sd 1:0:0:0: [sda] Assuming drive cache: write through

When using the WD drive, but a df shows nothing.

What is going on here?   I posted the startup log.

* nbew.TXT (16.93 KB - downloaded 136 times.)
Logged

CqCn
Full Member
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 169



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2009, 11:16:02 AM »

digitlman,

Is the 'startup log' you mention the line starting with sd ?  How does it show sd a command line after your *nix prompt?  sd is not a known cmd here...

Did you plug in a formatted disk with partitions on it?  Did you mount the disk, before your df cmd?

Almost any usb stick I plugged in, can be mounted if it was formatted, or it can be formatted with the fdisk here.
Logged

Cordially, CqCn

digitlman
Newbie
*

Karma: 0
Posts: 22


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2009, 09:15:13 AM »

I thought I formatted it, but I did not.

I hooked up the WD to Ubuntu and used GParted GUI to lay out the partitions.

Everything else went fine after that!

edit:  I have noticed that I have some NAND errors.  I suppressed the system check on boot, but should I be worried?  Do I just need to re-flash the internal flash file system?
Logged

CqCn
Full Member
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 169



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2009, 10:08:41 AM »

edit:  I have noticed that I have some NAND errors.  I suppressed the system check on boot, but should I be worried?  Do I just need to re-flash the internal flash file system?
I routinely (every time I checked, have been rebooting frequently) see these in dmesg; is that what you see?

Part of dmesg
...
Warning Sata is Powered Off
NFTL driver: nftlcore.c $Revision: 1.98 $, nftlmount.c $Revision: 1.41 $
NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xdc (Hynix NAND 512MiB 3,3V 8-bit)
Scanning device for bad blocks
Bad eraseblock 3232 at 0x19400000
Bad eraseblock 3233 at 0x19420000
Bad eraseblock 3234 at 0x19440000
Bad eraseblock 3235 at 0x19460000
Bad eraseblock 3236 at 0x19480000
Bad eraseblock 3237 at 0x194a0000
Using static partition definition
Creating 3 MTD partitions on "nand_mtd":
0x00000000-0x00100000 : "u-boot"
0x00100000-0x00300000 : "uImage"
0x00300000-0x20000000 : "root"
...
Logged

Cordially, CqCn

boerner
Jr. Member
**

Karma: 0
Posts: 54


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2009, 01:02:31 PM »

edit:  I have noticed that I have some NAND errors.  I suppressed the system check on boot, but should I be worried?  Do I just need to re-flash the internal flash file system?
I routinely (every time I checked, have been rebooting frequently) see these in dmesg; is that what you see?

Part of dmesg
...
Warning Sata is Powered Off
NFTL driver: nftlcore.c $Revision: 1.98 $, nftlmount.c $Revision: 1.41 $
NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0xad, Chip ID: 0xdc (Hynix NAND 512MiB 3,3V 8-bit)
Scanning device for bad blocks
Bad eraseblock 3232 at 0x19400000
Bad eraseblock 3233 at 0x19420000
Bad eraseblock 3234 at 0x19440000
Bad eraseblock 3235 at 0x19460000
Bad eraseblock 3236 at 0x19480000
Bad eraseblock 3237 at 0x194a0000
Using static partition definition
Creating 3 MTD partitions on "nand_mtd":
0x00000000-0x00100000 : "u-boot"
0x00100000-0x00300000 : "uImage"
0x00300000-0x20000000 : "root"
...

Since I just started playing around with my plug, I just noticed these messages today as well. Can I assume that they are innocuous?
Logged

bfmorgan
Guest
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2009, 03:51:46 PM »

Boerner,
  Yes, those bad erase blocks are normal. I have two plugs and both have twice the number of reported "bad blocks".
Logged

CqCn
Full Member
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 169



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2009, 04:04:18 PM »

Boerner,
  Yes, those bad erase blocks are normal. I have two plugs and both have twice the number of reported "bad blocks".
bfmorgan, Are those what is commonly referred to as the bad blocks of a flash, which have been configured out during the formatting?
Logged

Cordially, CqCn

Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to: