On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Ben Gardiner
<bengardi...@nanometrics.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote:
>>> +{
>>> + 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.
I have performed a refactoring but I have reached an impasse: the
'mtdparts spread' command is written for mtd devices whereas the
get_len_incl_bad() function is for NAND devices. I extracted a
function, mtd_get_len_incl_bad(), to which both the spread_partition
and nand_utils.c:get_len_incl_bad() function then delegated. But since
a board may have NAND enabled but not MTD_DEVICE (i.e. guruplug) I get
link errors sometimes. ATM I'm thinking of leaving the original
implementation of get_len_incl_bad in an #else. An alternative is to
move 'mtdparts spread' to 'nand mtdparts.spread' -- only OneNAND and
NAND devices (currently) have bad_block functions.
Best Regards,
Ben Gardiner
---
Nanometrics Inc.
+1 (613) 592-6776 x239
http://www.nanometrics.ca
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
