On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:08 -0800, Zach Welch wrote: > At the moment, I just want correctness. Thanks for doing the detective > work, but you're also welcom.
Whoops... that one slipped away from me.... you're also welcome to put together an initial patch for it. Similarly, you are welcome to submit a patch to improve the output, but I think the memcmps are good for the first check. A for-loop (in a static helper function) could then do a slower check to produce good output. -- > On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 17:04 -0600, Dean Glazeski wrote: > > After writing this email, I came across the bug. There are a few ways > > to fix it and I'll leave it to you to decide. The dev.address needs > > to be advanced with the file.address in the main verify loop. This > > might be replaceable by just advancing dev and not file, or moving > > both, etc. > > > > As another note, would it be better to have a for loop iterate through > > data as opposed to using memcmp? memcmp is faster, but you can > > provide more information if things are in a for loop. > > > > // Dean Glazeski > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Dean Glazeski <[email protected]> > > 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 > > <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
