From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:04:15 -0500
Subject: [U-Boot] PATCH: bugfix for nand erase failure with bad blocks
In-Reply-To: <4A391724.2080207@valueteam.com>
References: <4A3798C4.8000303@valueteam.com>	<20090616181035.52228832E416@gemini.denx.de>	<4A37F7BF.2090101@valueteam.com>	<20090616200940.DD093832E416@gemini.denx.de>	<4A37FE47.3030203@freescale.com>
	<4A3898B5.8060309@valueteam.com>	<4A389EE9.1000005@valueteam.com>
	<20090617155421.GB6333@loki.buserror.net>
	<4A391724.2080207@valueteam.com>
Message-ID: <4A39685F.6030304@freescale.com>
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

Michele De Candia (VT) wrote:
>> I'm a little uneasy about changing the normal erase command from size 
>> to end
>> -- it would break existing uses.  Though, it would make it consistent 
>> with
>> the NOR erase command.  Perhaps a period where it warns but accepts 
>> anyway a
>> size, if the second parameter is less than the first.
>>   
> 
> This doesn't work always: for example, when you erase at the NAND begin, 
> second parameter could be greater than first one.

Hmm... perhaps check the alignment?  If "end" is supposed to be the last 
to-be-erased byte, not the first not-to-be-erased byte, then if the low 
bits are 0 it's a size (and gets a warning) and if they're 1 it's an end?

Or just always use the new syntax, announce it loudly, and grep the 
board config files for scripts to update.  Or leave it alone and only 
change the plus variant.  :-)

> It can always warn user when he uses the first erase way.

Then what would be the correct, non-warning-producing way to erase a 
region of flash regardless of its bad block content?

-Scott