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 13JeeZ-0006uj-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Tue, 01 Aug 2000 17:12:27 +0100 Message-ID: <3986F5D0.AE69B670@colubris.com> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 12:07:44 -0400 From: Stephane Laroche MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Woodhouse CC: mtd@infradead.org Subject: Re: Erasing more than one sector at a time? References: <3985C29C.8F37EBC3@colubris.com> <12989.965121916@cygnus.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: Obviously, my mistake. I didn't realize I had to have the erase size be a multiple of a sector size. Sometimes, I just can't read code properly (an it wasn't even 3 AM). Thanks, -Stephane David Woodhouse wrote: > 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