Dear Scott,
In message 20090617155421.GB6333@loki.buserror.net you wrote:
If you want to erase an area but you want to be sure that 'size' bytes were erased, you should use:
'nand erase off size'
How would the "nand erase" command reliably distinguish between the two alternatives?
It cannot.
What we could do is extend the "plus" semantics (which currently allow rounding the size up to a block boundary) so that if you have a plus sign before the size it is interpreted the same as read/write.
But it's not only with the "plus". I think erase should work similar as write - if we allow write to skip bad blocks and "exceed" thenetto size, then we must do the same for erase.
I'm a little uneasy about changing the normal erase command from size to end -- it would break existing uses. Though, it would make it consistent with the NOR erase command. Perhaps a period where it warns but accepts anyway a size, if the second parameter is less than the first.
"if the second parameter is less than the first" ? Sorry, can't parse that. What do you have in mind?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk