Dear Scott, In message <4a37fe47.3030...@freescale.com> you wrote: > > > I see - thanks for the explanation. > > > > Hm... actually I think the write should fail in such a case... > > > > Scott, what do you think? > > I think the current behavior is reasonable. You're erasing a specific > region of flash, not an amount needed to hold a certain amount of data. > > While I can see the appeal of Michele's suggestion, I think it would be > more error-prone as people trying to erase a region rather than just the > size of data could erase too much.
That was my initial thought, too, which is why I asked Michele for an explanation. when I think about typiical use cases like automatic uypdate script similar to: => tftp 200000 filename => nand erase 0 +${filesize} => nand write 200000 0 ${filesize} I (and probably any other user) will expect that the "erase" and "nand write" commands use the same interpretation for the size argument, i. e. that and "erase" followed by a "write" will have made sufficient room to write all data. Thus I reconsidered and think the patch is actually reasonable, as it does what is the most practical use case needs. > It definitely should not be an error to erase a region that happens to > contain a bad block. Bad blocks are expected and we need to work around > them. Agreed. But it should be an error when writing to not erase flash blocks. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de "...this does not mean that some of us should not want, in a rather dispassionate sort of way, to put a bullet through csh's head." - Larry Wall in <1992aug6.221512.5...@netlabs.com> _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot