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

[Wolfgang Denk]

Dear Scott,

In message <20090617155421.GB6333 at loki.buserror.net> you wrote:
> > 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?

It cannot.

> 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.

But it's not only with the  "plus". I think erase should work similar
as write - if we allow write to skip bad blocks and "exceed" thenetto
size, then we must do the same for erase.

> 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.

"if the second parameter is less than the first" ? Sorry, can't parse
that. What do you have in mind?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
The so-called "desktop metaphor" of today's workstations  is  instead
an  "airplane-seat"  metaphor.  Anyone who has shuffled a lap full of
papers while seated between two portly passengers will recognize  the
difference -- one can see only a very few things at once.
                                                   - Fred Brooks, Jr.