On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > On 08/27/2010 04:46 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> For now, I guess don't worry about sharing the code. > > Plus, I've got some changes to the NAND command/util code I'm about to send > out that touch this -- if sharing is going to be a pain, I can go back to > the version that only passes back "fits with bad blocks", "fits with no bad > blocks", or "doesn't fit", and doesn't deal with 64-bit sizes because it's > only used by read/write which is limited by pointer size. That simpler > version is 128 bytes smaller in my build.
I imagine you don't have to go back. I wouldn't want to make the merge harder; but as long as there is a way to get the the size-including-bad-blocks and truncation status given an offset and target size. Please continue your work and I'll find a way to make 'mtdparts spread' fit with it after your post.. 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
