On Fri, 2014-06-20 at 09:10 -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
--- a/common/cmd_nand.c +++ b/common/cmd_nand.c @@ -462,6 +462,53 @@ static void adjust_size_for_badblocks(loff_t *size,
for (i = 0; i < p->eccbytes; i++) {if (i && !(i % 9))printf("\n ");printf("%2d ", p->eccpos[i]);}Why 9?
It's to print a new line on every 9th character position. I'll add a comment.
OK, Scott, breath... I got this one. It'll be OK...
Ivan, I am confident Scott understood that a newline would be generated every ninth-character. We all get that. I think what Scott was asking was why the value 9 was chosen? Why not 10? Or 8? Or 145? Was it to fit some arbitrary line length or screen size? Would it make more sense to use something familiar like a base 10 or half of base-16?
More specifically, it neither avoids a division (as a power of two would) nor does it seem to match the ecc size of the layouts used by the davinci driver (which is the only user of this so far), nor is it anywhere near 80 columns.
Also, why is the field width two characters, when ecc positions can exceed 100?
-Scott