On 02/07/2013 04:13:55 PM, Harvey Chapman wrote:
[ I started this conversation off-list before I joined the list. ]
The idea is to add .part as a valid command suffix to nand read/write
so it would match nand erase.part. The code to implement it makes
"nand read.part" act identically to "nand read".
On Feb 7, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Scott Wood <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> >> In fact, I think erase should be modified to deprecate
erase.part and make erase work like read does now.
>> >
>> > Erase used to work like read does. I deliberately changed it so
that typos (e.g. "nand erase $partition $fliesize") don't end up
erasing your entire partition or chip.
>> Ah, then maybe we should add .part to nand read for consistency?
I'm ok either way.
>
> That would get messy because it would be orthogonal to other
suffixes. Reading too much is not as harmful as
Nothing would change other than do_nand() would treat "nand read" and
"nand read.part" identically.
The only reason to add .part/.chip is if the unsuffixed versions no
longer operate on entire partitions/chips.
> erasing too much. Writing too much can be bad, though. Perhaps we
should just eliminate the ability to do reads/writes without explicit
size (it already has problems with the size needing adjustment due to
bad blocks).
I liked that I didn't have to specify the size.
It's fine until you get a bad block in the partition, and you end up
accessing the first block of the next partition (or getting "Attempt to
read/write outside the flash area" if it's the last partition).
Of course, fixing partition/chip accesses to account for this when
determining size would be even better. :-)
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
