[U-Boot] [PATCH v4 3/4] mtdparts: add new sub-command "spread"

[Ben Gardiner]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Ben Gardiner
<bengardiner at nanometrics.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com> wrote:
>>> +{
>>> +     if (!mtd->block_isbad)
>>> +             goto out;
>>> +
>>> +     u32 i, bb_delta = 0;
>>> +
>>> +     for (i = part->offset; i - bb_delta < part->offset + part->size;
>>> +                                             i += mtd->erasesize) {
>>> +             if (mtd->block_isbad(mtd, i))
>>> +                     bb_delta += mtd->erasesize;
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     /*
>>> +      * Absorb bad blocks immeadiately following this
>>> +      * partition also into the partition, such that
>>> +      * the next partition starts with a good block.
>>> +      */
>>> +     while (i < mtd->size && mtd->block_isbad(mtd, i)) {
>>> +             bb_delta += mtd->erasesize;
>>> +             i += mtd->erasesize;
>>> +     }
>>
>> Could this be refactored with get_len_incl_bad()?  It should return both the
>> updated length and a flag indicating whether it was truncated.
>
> Yes, I think so. Good point.

I have performed a refactoring but I have reached an impasse: the
'mtdparts spread' command is written for mtd devices whereas the
get_len_incl_bad() function is for NAND devices. I extracted a
function, mtd_get_len_incl_bad(), to which both the spread_partition
and nand_utils.c:get_len_incl_bad() function then delegated. But since
a board may have NAND enabled but not MTD_DEVICE (i.e. guruplug) I get
link errors sometimes. ATM I'm thinking of leaving the original
implementation of get_len_incl_bad in an #else. An alternative is to
move 'mtdparts spread' to 'nand mtdparts.spread' -- only OneNAND and
NAND devices (currently) have bad_block functions.

Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner

---
Nanometrics Inc.
+1 (613) 592-6776 x239
http://www.nanometrics.ca