[U-Boot] [PATCH v3] imls: Add support to list images in NAND device

[Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>]

On 12/17/2012 02:22:40 AM, Vipin Kumar wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 11:40 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 12/14/2012 03:32:04 AM, Vipin Kumar wrote:
>>>>> +
>>>>> +			switch (genimg_get_format(buffer)) {
>>>>> +			case IMAGE_FORMAT_LEGACY:
>>>>> +				header = (const image_header_t *)buffer;
>>>>> +				len = image_get_image_size(header);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +				ret = nand_imls_legacyimage(nand,
>>>>> nand_dev,
>>>>> +						off, len);
>>>>> +				if (ret<   0&&   ret != -ENOMEM)
>>>>> +					return ret;
>>>>> +				break;
>>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_FIT)
>>>>> +			case IMAGE_FORMAT_FIT:
>>>>> +				len = fit_get_size(buffer);
>>>>> +				ret = nand_imls_fitimage(nand, nand_dev,
>>>>> +						off, len);
>>>>> +				if (ret<   0&&   ret != -ENOMEM)
>>>>> +					return ret;
>>>>> +				break;
>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> +			}
>>>> 
>>>> Do you really mean to return from the main imls function just  
>>>> because
>>>> one image has an error?  By "use return" I meant return from the
>>>> subfunction.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> This return only corresponds to the situation when there is an error
>>> returned from nand read routine. In that case, I don't think there  
>>> is
>>> any use reading the NAND any further.
>> 
>> Just because one page has an uncorrectable error doesn't mean the
>> entire NAND is bad.  Note that this is different from what you
>> currently do if you get an error on the initial read where you look  
>> for
>> a header.
>> 
> 
> Yes, I got your point.
> 
> I would now not announce the uncorrectable errors as they may hog the  
> whole stdout and still continue to work for the whole NAND device.  
> Please check the implementation in v4

I'd rather see errors be announced, with some reasonable limit on how  
many (and a message indicating if further errors exist that were  
suppressed).

-Scott