From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 15:43:59 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] The command "nand write.yaffs" is not working correctly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4E8A1E8F.9060608@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 09/30/2011 04:10 AM, Jin Zhengxiong-R64188 wrote: > I once met the similar issue with 2011.03 base and fixed it with following patch, But > I didn't do a detail checking for that, FYI... > > @@ -499,6 +499,7 @@ int nand_write_skip_bad(nand_info_t *nand, loff_t offset, size_t *length, > return -EINVAL; > } > > +#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_NAND_YAFFS > if (!need_skip) { > rval = nand_write (nand, offset, length, buffer); > if (rval == 0) > @@ -509,13 +510,12 @@ int nand_write_skip_bad(nand_info_t *nand, loff_t offset, size_t *length, > offset, rval); > return rval; > } > - > +#endif This should be a runtime check for whether yaffs was actually requested. The current code does something similar for WITH_DROP_FFS. Or perhaps we should just drop this optimization altogether, barring someone demonstrating that it makes a huge performance difference. > while (left_to_write > 0) { > size_t block_offset = offset & (nand->erasesize - 1); > size_t write_size; > > WATCHDOG_RESET (); > - > if (nand_block_isbad (nand, offset & ~(nand->erasesize - 1))) { > printf ("Skip bad block 0x%08llx\n", > offset & ~(nand->erasesize - 1)); > @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ int nand_write_skip_bad(nand_info_t *nand, loff_t offset, size_t *length, > ops.oobbuf = ops.datbuf + pagesize; > > rval = nand->write_oob(nand, offset, &ops); > - if (!rval) > + if ( rval != 0) > break; > > offset += pagesize; Drop these. -Scott