Scott Wood wrote: > 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. >
As you has suggested we could use: 'nand erase start end' and 'nand erase off +size' > 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. > This doesn't work always: for example, when you erase at the NAND begin, second parameter could be greater than first one. It can always warn user when he uses the first erase way. > -Scott > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
