[RFC] [PATCH] [MTD-UTILS]: flash_unlock: enhancing for unlocking of specified number of blocks

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 20:33 -0800, Vimal Singh wrote:
> On 12/8/09, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 20:00 +0530, Vimal Singh wrote:
> > > This patch enhances the flash_unlock utility to be able to do
> > > unlocking for specified blocks range.
> > > This patch also fixes calculation of 'length' as in previous patch.
> > >
> > > Say there are 240 blocks present in the device. Then:
> > > offset starts from: 0x0
> > > and full size of device: 0x1E00000
> > >
> > > doing: 240 * 0x20000 gives -> 0x1E00000
> > > But last block address should be 0x1DE0000 (which spans for 0x20000
> > > bytes, adding up to size of 0x1E00000)
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vimal Singh <vimalsingh at ti.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > --- a/flash_unlock.c  2009-11-24 19:33:18.000000000 +0530
> > > +++ b/flash_unlock.c  2009-11-24 19:36:18.000000000 +0530
> > > @@ -21,13 +21,14 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > >       int fd;
> > >       struct mtd_info_user mtdInfo;
> > >       struct erase_info_user mtdLockInfo;
> > > +     int count;
> > >
> > >       /*
> > >        * Parse command line options
> > >        */
> > > -     if(argc != 2)
> > > +     if(argc < 2)
> > >       {
> > > -             fprintf(stderr, "USAGE: %s <mtd device>\n", argv[0]);
> > > +             fprintf(stderr, "USAGE: %s <mtd device> <offset in hex> <block
> >
> > The patch looks fine for me, except that you should instead make these
> > to be some command line options.
> 
> I guess you did not go through the patch fully. The same is done in this patch.

No, I looked. What I meant was doing:

flash_unlock /dev/mtdZ --offset=X --block=Y

or

flash_unlock /dev/mtdZ -b Y -o X

instead of

flash_unlock /dev/mtdZ X Y

Obviously the first one is cleaner and is easier to extend, and you do
not have so strict dependency on the X and Y order, and this is more
readable, and less error-prone.

However, I glanced to flash_lock, and it uses similar bad style, so I
guess it is ok if flash_unlock is symmetric. Thus, I've pushed this
patch, thank you!

****** NB !!!! *******
Your patch was again line-wrapped. How many times I complained about
this??? I've fixed it up, but really, it not funny already.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)