From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11609 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2007 14:13:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 11597 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Dec 2007 14:13:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.243) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:11:27 +0000 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c25so433822ana for ; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:11:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.215.5 with SMTP id n5mr17718602ang.1197382285519; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:11:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.42.19 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:11:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:13:00 -0000 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D8yvind_Harboe?=" To: "?yvind Harboe" , "Andrew Lunn" , "eCos Disuss" In-Reply-To: <20071211135137.GG30586@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071211094252.GD30586@lunn.ch> <20071211100356.GF30586@lunn.ch> <20071211135137.GG30586@lunn.ch> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 70f79484b61a528b Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: [ECOS] Re: Check for illegal address range in io/flash X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 On Dec 11, 2007 2:51 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 11:09:40AM +0100, ?yvind Harboe wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2007 11:03 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > > > > I mainly want the busted check in flash_erase() to be removed. > > > > ASSERT's are probably fine. > > > > > What is actually wrong with this check? I have no idea what this check is supposed to do. If a valid range is passed in, it is a no-operation, otherwise it does something mysterious that looks just wrong to me. I'm afraid all I can conclude is that it should be deleted as plain wrong/unused. The fact that it is harmless for valid ranges has allowed it to survive to date, that's the antrophic principle for you I guess. Someone else would have to speak up for it. It would be a shame if plain wrong harmless code that nobody understands could never be deleted from eCos :-) > I don't want to remove this until i fully understand what is causing > your problem and how this code is wrong. Please could you explain what > you are seeing. The problem is that I relied on flash_erase() to return an error upon illeg= al address range. When I tested with an illegal address range, flash_erase() did not return an error. Upon inspecting the code, I saw something that looked like it is *trying* to check the address, but I have found no explanation for that code, so I see a couple of alternatives: - if nobody understands this code, delete it after a week or two to wait for someone to speak up and see what happens. Probably nothing. - keep this code forever as it is harmless(with valid addresses) nobody will be hurt by it. - add address check to flash_erase() & program and return error message --=20 =D8yvind Harboe http://www.zylin.com - eCos ARM & FPGA developer kit -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss