Thanks for the feedback. I will take a closer look at the code. I am not entirely surprised by this bug in the new function (given the way that I implemented it), but it's great to hear that I didn't cause any other regressions with the existing commands.
--Z On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 16:58 -0600, Dean Glazeski wrote: > nand verify is not working. I'm trying to trace it to the problem, > but it appears there is something wrong with the file struct that's > reading the file. Somehow the data read from the file doesn't match > the actual data in the file. The odd ball thing is that nand erase, > followed by nand write, followed by nand dump produces matching bin > files to the original written bin file. It also appears that the file > struct is used in the same way in the nand write handler, so I'm a bit > confused. I'm going to keep poking until I figure it out or some one > posts something here. > > As another curveball, it reads 0x1B when not verifying oob and 0x05 > when I tell it to at location 0. The correct value in the file is > 0x1E for that location and the NAND device does return this value when > read. > > // Dean Glazeski > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Zach Welch <z...@superlucidity.net> > wrote: > On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 23:25 -0600, Dean Glazeski wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Recent NAND file I/O changes are parsing the wrong argument > for the > > size. Should be third argument, not second. > > > Pushed. Let me know if you find any other problems. > Incidentally, does > the 'new verify' command work for you (after this fix)? :) > > --Z > _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
