On 02/07/2013 04:13:55 PM, Harvey Chapman wrote:
[ I started this conversation off-list before I joined the list. ]
The idea is to add .part as a valid command suffix to nand read/write so it would match nand erase.part. The code to implement it makes "nand read.part" act identically to "nand read".
On Feb 7, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Scott Wood scottwood@freescale.com wrote:
In fact, I think erase should be modified to deprecate
erase.part and make erase work like read does now.
Erase used to work like read does. I deliberately changed it so
that typos (e.g. "nand erase $partition $fliesize") don't end up erasing your entire partition or chip.
Ah, then maybe we should add .part to nand read for consistency?
I'm ok either way.
That would get messy because it would be orthogonal to other
suffixes. Reading too much is not as harmful as
Nothing would change other than do_nand() would treat "nand read" and "nand read.part" identically.
The only reason to add .part/.chip is if the unsuffixed versions no longer operate on entire partitions/chips.
erasing too much. Writing too much can be bad, though. Perhaps we
should just eliminate the ability to do reads/writes without explicit size (it already has problems with the size needing adjustment due to bad blocks).
I liked that I didn't have to specify the size.
It's fine until you get a bad block in the partition, and you end up accessing the first block of the next partition (or getting "Attempt to read/write outside the flash area" if it's the last partition).
Of course, fixing partition/chip accesses to account for this when determining size would be even better. :-)
-Scott