On 09/30/2011 04:10 AM, Jin Zhengxiong-R64188 wrote:
> I once met the similar issue with 2011.03 base and fixed it with following
> patch, But
> I didn't do a detail checking for that, FYI...
>
> @@ -499,6 +499,7 @@ int nand_write_skip_bad(nand_info_t *nand, loff_t offset,
> size_t *length,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> +#ifndef CONFIG_CMD_NAND_YAFFS
> if (!need_skip) {
> rval = nand_write (nand, offset, length, buffer);
> if (rval == 0)
> @@ -509,13 +510,12 @@ int nand_write_skip_bad(nand_info_t *nand, loff_t
> offset, size_t *length,
> offset, rval);
> return rval;
> }
> -
> +#endif
This should be a runtime check for whether yaffs was actually requested.
The current code does something similar for WITH_DROP_FFS.
Or perhaps we should just drop this optimization altogether, barring
someone demonstrating that it makes a huge performance difference.
> while (left_to_write > 0) {
> size_t block_offset = offset & (nand->erasesize - 1);
> size_t write_size;
>
> WATCHDOG_RESET ();
> -
> if (nand_block_isbad (nand, offset & ~(nand->erasesize - 1))) {
> printf ("Skip bad block 0x%08llx\n",
> offset & ~(nand->erasesize - 1));
> @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ int nand_write_skip_bad(nand_info_t *nand, loff_t offset,
> size_t *length,
> ops.oobbuf = ops.datbuf + pagesize;
>
> rval = nand->write_oob(nand, offset, &ops);
> - if (!rval)
> + if ( rval != 0)
> break;
>
> offset += pagesize;
Drop these.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
