[U-Boot] PATCH: bugfix for nand erase failure with bad blocks

[Scott Wood]

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:44:41AM +0200, Michele De Candia (VT) wrote:
> Moreover, I think that if you want to erase a specific NAND area, the  
> correct way to use 'nand erase' command would be:
>
> 'nand erase start end'
>
> If you want to erase  an area but you want to be sure that 'size' bytes  
> were erased, you should use:
>
> 'nand erase off size'

How would the "nand erase" command reliably distinguish between the two alternatives?

What we could do is extend the "plus" semantics (which currently allow
rounding the size up to a block boundary) so that if you have a plus sign
before the size it is interpreted the same as read/write.

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.

-Scott