On 02/27/2013 08:20:19 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 02/26/2013 09:08 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> The name "maxsize" suggests that it's a size, not a position.
OK, I'll call it maxoff (because it's the max offset within the NAND
for a given partition, or end of the NAND).
Wouldn't it be less intrusive to just make it actually be the size
instead of an offset?
>> - offset += block_len; + *offset += block_len; }
>>
>> return ret; @@ -459,22 +463,26 @@ static size_t drop_ffs(const
>> nand_info_t *nand, const u_char *buf, * Write image to NAND
>> flash. * Blocks that are marked bad are skipped and the is
>> written to the next * block instead as long as the image is
>> short enough to fit even after - * skipping the bad blocks. + *
>> skipping the bad blocks. Note that the actual size needed may
>> exceed + * both the length and available NAND due to bad blocks.
>
> If that happens, then the function returns failure. Are the
> contents of "actual" well-defined when the function returns
> failure?
They are as well defined as what happens with length. If we say we
can't write, we set both to 0 and return an error. I'll take this as
a request to expand the comment and do so.
The comments could use expanding (it doesn't even explain what happens
to length in the non-error case), but also it looks like there are some
error paths where actual doesn't get cleared, in the
CONFIG_CMD_NAND_YAFFS section.
I was also wondering about the case where check_skip_bad() says it
doesn't fit. It doesn't return the actual in that case -- it returns
offset as of when it stopped. So a caller of
nand_read|write_skip_bad() would see the same "actual" as if it just
barely fit. I'm not sure that this function ever would return an
actual size that exceeds the available NAND.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
