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 <dngl...@gmail.com> 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
