From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Vipin Kumar <vipin.kumar@st.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:34:16 +0530
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3] imls: Add support to list images in NAND
	device
In-Reply-To: <1355789112.18495.7@snotra>
References: <1355789112.18495.7@snotra>
Message-ID: <50CFF950.7050205@st.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

On 12/18/2012 5:35 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 02:22:40 AM, Vipin Kumar wrote:
>> On 12/14/2012 11:40 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2012 03:32:04 AM, Vipin Kumar wrote:
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + switch (genimg_get_format(buffer)) {
>>>>>> + case IMAGE_FORMAT_LEGACY:
>>>>>> + header = (const image_header_t *)buffer;
>>>>>> + len = image_get_image_size(header);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + ret = nand_imls_legacyimage(nand,
>>>>>> nand_dev,
>>>>>> + off, len);
>>>>>> + if (ret< 0&& ret != -ENOMEM)
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_FIT)
>>>>>> + case IMAGE_FORMAT_FIT:
>>>>>> + len = fit_get_size(buffer);
>>>>>> + ret = nand_imls_fitimage(nand, nand_dev,
>>>>>> + off, len);
>>>>>> + if (ret< 0&& ret != -ENOMEM)
>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you really mean to return from the main imls function just because
>>>>> one image has an error? By "use return" I meant return from the
>>>>> subfunction.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This return only corresponds to the situation when there is an error
>>>> returned from nand read routine. In that case, I don't think there is
>>>> any use reading the NAND any further.
>>>
>>> Just because one page has an uncorrectable error doesn't mean the
>>> entire NAND is bad. Note that this is different from what you
>>> currently do if you get an error on the initial read where you look for
>>> a header.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I got your point.
>>
>> I would now not announce the uncorrectable errors as they may hog the
>> whole stdout and still continue to work for the whole NAND device.
>> Please check the implementation in v4
>
> I'd rather see errors be announced, with some reasonable limit on how
> many (and a message indicating if further errors exist that were
> suppressed).
>

Hmm, OK. I would do it this way in v5

> -Scott
>