[U-Boot] [PATCH] update nand.h to support address more than 0x80000000

[adrian wen]

2009/6/3 Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>
>
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 07:27:01PM +0800, adrian wen wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I found a bug in nand.h which prevent UBOOT to supprt large NAND chip.
> >
> > The bug description as below:
> > In the original implementation, we use a wrapper function in
> > nand.h to facilitate nand_base function usage in other files,
> > like cmd_nand.c, nand_util.c etc.
> >
> > However, the wrapper in nand.h is using off_t which is long type.
> > If we pass a address like 0x80000000, which is allowed by nand_base.c,
> > the wrapper would recognize it as a negative num. So we would get a
> > huge num when this parameter get into nand_base.c
> >
> > Fix it by replacing off_t to loff_t type.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lei Wen <leiwen at marvell.com>
>
> A substantially similar patch was posted here:
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-May/052847.html
>
> I'm fine with this change, but it should also handle large erases.
>
> -Scott
I don't quitly catch the meaning. Do you mean that uboot erases begin
with large address or large length?

This patch only solve the wrapper bug.
For the nand_block_isbad as a example, this function defined in nand.h as:
static inline int nand_block_isbad(nand_info_t *info, off_t ofs)
{
        return info->block_isbad(info, ofs);
}

However, in nand_base.c, we define this function as:
static int nand_block_markbad(struct mtd_info *mtd, loff_t ofs)

Also, in nand_util.c, it use a lot of nand_block_markbad, which is the
one _defined_ in nand.h. So the problem comes that when we pass a
address greater than 0x80000000, the off_t type would recognize it as
a negative number, while loff_t recognize it valid.

When this _0x80000000_ pass to the nand_block_markbad in nand_base.c,
it would be recognized as 0xffffffff80000000, which is caused by the
wrapper in nand.h.

-Adrian