On 03/09/2013 07:06:54 PM, htbegin wrote:
Hi, Scott
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Scott Wood scottwood@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