On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Maxime Ripard <
maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 09:58:10AM -0800, Steve Rae wrote:
> > > > So, to handle MMC versus NAND, I propose that we follow the same
> method
> > > > used throughout 'fastboot':
> > > >
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_MMC_DEV
> > > > total_blocks += blkcnt;
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_FASTBOOT_FLASH_NAND_DEV
> > > > + /* TBD */
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > Eventually, we should support both. But is it even broken now? It was
> > > working just fine last time I tried. The write function is supposed to
> > > return the adjusted number of blocks that the write actually used (bad
> > > blocks included). Am I missing something?
> > >
> > Yes - it is broken now -- there is no "write function" in this
> > CHUNK_TYPE_DONT_CARE logic....
>
> Ah, yes, in the case where the block we skip is bad, and we should
> skip yet another block.
>
> Jeffy also had an issue with the session_id that required to honour
> DONT_CARE to handle the case where you chain fastboot commands as part
> of one sessions. It should probably fix this issue as well.
>
> yes -- I see this patch from jeffy (on Feb 2)
fastboot: sparse: fix chunk write offset calculation
I haven't tested it, but it seems to ignore the "session_id" completely,
and write each session, starting from "storage->start"...
And since his "wrote_blocks" starts at 0 for each session, I don't think
that is what we want....
Thanks, Steve
PS. I have submitted a "v2" !!!
--
> Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
> Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
> http://free-electrons.com
>
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
