On 03/09/2013 07:06:54 PM, htbegin wrote:
Hi, Scott
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com>
wrote:
>> >> I just use "*length -= left_to_write - written_size" to tell
the upper
>> >> level that what
>> >> had been actually happened. For the current block,
"written_size" has
>> >> been written to the NAND Flash yet, so left_to_write should be
>> >> subtracted by "written_size".
>> >
>> >
>> > But left_to_write isn't decreased until after this error return,
so
>> > that's
>> > already the case. Subtracting written_size from left_to_write
has the
>> > effect of increasing length by written_size, so the return value
will
>> > now
>> > look like the error page has been written.
>> >
>> > -Scott
>> No, the returned value doesn't include the length of the error
page.
>> In no-WITH_YAFFS_OOB case, when nand_write failed,
>> truncated_write_size has been
>> updated by nand_write to the length which has been successfully
>> written , so it's OK to subtract written_size from left_to_write.
>
>
> OK, but that doesn't explain why the change is needed. You said
you wanted
> to find the block with the error. We only write one block at a
time in the
> loop. Why do you need the specific page within the block that
failed?
>
> -Scott
Yes, you are right it's OK to ignore the written length of the
write-failed block, but as I said before I just wanted to tell the
upper level what had been actually written. So if you insist the
subtraction of written_len is unnecessary, it's alright with me.
Thanks. I do insist -- it adds complexity.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
