From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:14:00 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] New NAND subsystem: mtd like commands
	support jffs2 and bad blocks
In-Reply-To: <5c01f02f0610090947x7b7b9c1fjfc6efa787963d7c0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5c01f02f0610060802o429760efib1ccc8c936f4509a@mail.gmail.com>
	<200610090949.52454.sr@denx.de>
	<5c01f02f0610090947x7b7b9c1fjfc6efa787963d7c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200610101214.01247.sr@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Guido,

On Monday 09 October 2006 18:47, Guido Classen wrote:
> now the next try...

;-)

> > Hmmm. Not sure here. Perhaps you could try to enhance the output so that
> > it there printend that much output.
>
> The relation between time spent on NAND operation and progress output may
> depend on much things like NAND type and size, CPU and bus speeds, console
> type and speed. So I have changed the patch in a way that the output is
> only print for whole percent steps.  This should reduce the output at
> reasonable amount independent from this circumstances.

Looks much better to me. Thanks.

> > And I also noticed that the output is not
> > correct:
> >
> > => nand erase 0 1000000
> >
> > NAND erase: device 0 offset 0x0, size 0x1000000
> > Erasing 128 Kibyte at fe0000 --  1% complete.
> > OK
> >
> > The 1% is for the complete FLASH size, but I was erasing just a small
> > part of it. I would really like to see 100%, even when erasing a small
> > part.
>
> This is fixed

Good. Thanks.

> > > Maybe a "quiet" option at command line for the related commands (like
> > > "clean" option) will be the right way to do it. What do you think about
> > > this?
> > >
> > > I will rework the patch with your suggestions as soon as provisions to
> > > switch on/off the "quiet" option and resubmit it the next days.
> >
> > Please see my comment above. I don't want the commands to become too
> > complex with lots of options (they are already complex enough). So my
> > suggestion is to change the code that it doesn't slow down the operation
> > anymore.
>
> Now I consider an environment variable "quiet" if set for activating the
> quiet options. This even permits the usage of the quiet option with macros.
> To my mind this is a very convenient to apply the option to a sequence of
> NAND operations.

Good idea. So the "normal" operation with "quiet" not set will give the 
complete output including the "Skipping bad block..." lines.

> Furthermore the spelling and grammar fixes from Phil are applied! Phil
> thank you very much for that!

Thanks.

If Wolfgang has no further issues we will commit your patch in the next few 
days. Thanks again.

Best regards,
Stefan