From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NT03w-00029s-0f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:38:36 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NT03r-0001wx-22 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:38:35 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56739 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NT03q-0001wh-TH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:38:30 -0500 Received: from [207.61.160.13] (port=54066 helo=MAILEXCH.octasic.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NT03q-0001qO-IA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:38:30 -0500 Message-ID: <4B465455.1060703@octasic.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:38:29 -0500 From: Jean-Hugues Deschenes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] NAND_CMD_COPYBACKPRG1 commands problematic? List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Hi, Has anyone used NAND_CMD_COPYBACKPRG1 commands? Those seem problematic, as it seems s->iolen is not updated when the emulated page buffer is written to, such that blk_write fails to write the updated data to the block device... Is it a misunderstanding on my part of the command sequence to send? ( I send a NAND_CMD_READ0 - NAND_CMD_LPREAD2 and a nand_getio to load the page buffer, follwoed by a NAND_CMD_PAGEPROGRAM1 [offset 0 within the page] to set the device to wrtie mode, followed by a NAND_CMD_COPYBACKPRG1 [offset 2048 within the page], followed by 64 bytes of data and finally, a NAND_CMD_PAGEPROGRAM2)... Thanks! jh