From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from majordomo by infradead.org with local (Exim 3.03 #1) id 13JYIb-0005vi-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 10:25:21 +0100 Received: from dns.cygnus.co.uk ([194.130.39.3] helo=pasanda.cygnus.co.uk) by infradead.org with smtp (Exim 3.03 #1) id 13JYIa-0005vc-00 for mtd@infradead.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 10:25:20 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <3985C29C.8F37EBC3@colubris.com> References: <3985C29C.8F37EBC3@colubris.com> To: Stephane Laroche Cc: mtd@infradead.org Subject: Re: Erasing more than one sector at a time? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 10:25:16 +0100 Message-ID: <12989.965121916@cygnus.co.uk> Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: stephane.laroche@colubris.com said: > I'm wondering why the parameter validation at the start of those > function specifically prohibits erasing more than one sector. Is this > because the interface is defined this way or is it an oversight? Unless I'm smoking crack, the CFI command set code _does_ support erases longer than one erase block. The three checks which could cause it to return EINVAL are: 1. start address must be erase-block-aligned 2. length needs to be a multiple of erase block size. 3. start + length must not exceed the _total_ size of the device. The DiskOnChip code is different, but that's been/being fixed - depending on whether the patch has hit the CVS tree yet or not. -- dwmw2 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org