On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 04:43:59PM -0400, Ben Gardiner wrote: >> +static void spread_partition(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct part_info *part, >> + u32 *next_offset) > > As in patch 2, change u32 to uint64_t.
Ok. >> +{ >> + if (!mtd->block_isbad) >> + goto out; >> + >> + u32 i, bb_delta = 0; >> + >> + for (i = part->offset; i - bb_delta < part->offset + part->size; >> + i += mtd->erasesize) { >> + if (mtd->block_isbad(mtd, i)) >> + bb_delta += mtd->erasesize; >> + } >> + >> + /* >> + * Absorb bad blocks immeadiately following this >> + * partition also into the partition, such that >> + * the next partition starts with a good block. >> + */ >> + while (i < mtd->size && mtd->block_isbad(mtd, i)) { >> + bb_delta += mtd->erasesize; >> + i += mtd->erasesize; >> + } > > Could this be refactored with get_len_incl_bad()? It should return both the > updated length and a flag indicating whether it was truncated. Yes, I think so. Good point. >> + debug("spread_partitions: device = %s%d, partition %d >> =" >> + " (%s) 0x%...@0x%08x\n", >> + MTD_DEV_TYPE(dev->id->type), dev->id->num, >> + part_num, part->name, part->size, >> + part->offset); > > Why the extra indent on that last line? > > IMHO, it's also nicer to line up continuation lines like this: > > debug("spread_partitions..." > " (%s) ..." > MTD_DEV... > part_num... > part->offset); Right. I think I forgot also about this formatting requirement which you pointed out in the env.oob review. I'll get it right soon enough. Best Regards, Ben Gardiner --- Nanometrics Inc. http://www.nanometrics.ca _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot