Stefan Roese wrote: > On Friday 07 March 2008, Jerry Van Baren wrote: >>> would be nice. This way the developer could see, if the interface to the >>> FLASH chips is optimized. But I think this is overkill too. Let's >>> concentrate on a clean progress bar with a fixed length. >>> >>> Patches welcome. :) >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Stefan >> All but the timing part ;-) >> <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/37626> > > Yes, thanks. I did already write a reply to this. Crashes on my system while > programming 16Mbytes. > > Best regards, > Stefan
Odd, I didn't see your reply, saying "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" must trigger our mail filter, it's built on Microsoft technology. ;-) I can read your reply in gmane.org, now that I know to look. :-/ The crash is undoubtedly due to a buffer overflow on the format string (16MB => . Adopting Clemen's proposal for a fixed length bar (see previous email for a 50 dot bar example) is trivial. The saveenv also looks funky. I only mucked with the cmd_mem.c command to make it display better with the progress dots, obviously the saveenv command needs to have the same changes s/"Writing to Flash... "/"Writing to Flash\n"/ Apparently saveenv does four very short program operations. > => saveenv > > [snip] > > Writing to Flash... | > | > | > | > done > > [snip] If you want to extend my patch, here's your chance to grab all the glory. ;-) Best regards, gvb ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
