Hi, On 02/06/17 15:21, Chris Packham wrote: > erasesize is meaningful for flash devices but for SRAM there is no > concept of an erase block so erasesize is set to 0. When partitioning > these devices instead of ensuring partitions fall on erasesize > boundaries we ensure they fall on writesize boundaries. > > Helped-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com> > Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.pack...@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
I had someone mention to me in passing that mtdinfo was failing for them (crashing with some floating point error). I'm wondering if we've created a divide-by-zero problem by reporting 0 erase size in /proc/mtd. I don't have any other info and right now I don't have access to the system I had with the mchp23lcv1024 sram. Andrew, do you still have access to your device?
