Scott Wood wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:44:41AM +0200, Michele De Candia (VT) wrote:
Moreover, I think that if you want to erase a specific NAND area, the correct way to use 'nand erase' command would be:
'nand erase start end'
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?
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.
As you has suggested we could use:
'nand erase start end'
and
'nand erase off +size'
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.
This doesn't work always: for example, when you erase at the NAND begin, second parameter could be greater than first one.
It can always warn user when he uses the first erase way.
-Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot