Hi Lukasz, > Hi Tom, > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:21:39PM +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote: > > > > > It is very common that FAT code is using following pattern: > > > if (disk_{read|write}() < 0) > > > return -1; > > > > > > Up till now the above code was dead, since disk_{read|write) could > > > only return value >= 0. > > > As a result some errors from medium layer (i.e. eMMC/SD) were not > > > caught. > > > > > > The above behavior was caused by block_{read|write|erase} declared > > > at struct block_dev_desc (@part.h). It returns unsigned long, > > > where 0 indicates error and > 0 indicates that medium operation > > > was correct. > > > > > > This patch as error regards 0 returned from > > > block_{read|write|erase} when nr_blocks is grater than zero. > > > Read/Write operation with nr_blocks=0 should return 0 and hence > > > is not considered as an error. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <l.majew...@samsung.com> > > > > > > Test HW: Odroid XU3 - Exynos 5433 > > > > Can you pick up Stephen's FAT replacement series and see if it also > > fixes this problem? Thanks! > > > > Ok, I will test this fat implementation.
I've applied v2 of this patchset on top of SHA1: 79c884d7e449a63fa8f07b7495f8f9873355c48f Unfortunately, DFU tests fail with first attempt to pass the test. Apparently this code needs some more review/testing before being included to main line. > > However, since for v2015.10 it won't be included, I would also opt for > adding this fix to the current u-boot. > -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot