summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/flash_unlock.c
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2015-11-11flash_{un,}lock: support --version flagBrian Norris
Just use the common helper macro. Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
2015-11-11flash_{un,}lock: switch to getopt libraryBrian Norris
We will be adding some more flags, so the getopt library can help. Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
2015-11-11flash_{un,}lock: nest optional parameters in help messageBrian Norris
block count should be nested within the optional offset listing. That is, we require offset before we accept a block count. Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
2011-06-06flash_{lock, unlock}: fix off-by-one error for "entire device" lengthSteven Miao
This basically reverts commit 43feb39f35a9ee0ed3 which changed the full length calculation to be one less than one sector. I don't understand the logic in the commit message where it states that the length should be one sector smaller as this results in misbehavior at runtime. For example, with a mtd device with total size 0x400000 and erase block size of 0x20000 (which gives us a total of 32 sectors), this new logic results in: mtdLockInfo.start = 0; mtdLockInfo.length = 0x3e0000; /* (32 - 1) * 0x20000 */ Calling MEMLOCK/MEMUNLOCK on the device with this range leaves the last sector unchanged which is certainly not what we want. So drop this -1 part of the calculation. To look at it another way, if we only attempt to lock one sector, this calculation would end up with the .length set to 0. Calling MEMLOCK with a length of 0 does not lock the sector as this simple code shows: int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { erase_info_t e0 = { 0, 0 }, e1 = { 0, 0x20000 }; int fd = open(argv[1], O_RDONLY); ioctl(fd, MEMUNLOCK, &e1); printf("%i\n", ioctl(fd, MEMISLOCKED, &e1)); ioctl(fd, MEMLOCK, &e0); printf("%i\n", ioctl(fd, MEMISLOCKED, &e1)); } MEMISLOCKED returns 0 both times. If we change the argument to MEMLOCK to e1, then MEMISLOCKED returns 1. Signed-off-by: Steven Miao <realmz6@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
2011-06-06flash_{lock,unlock}: convert to common codeMike Frysinger
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
2011-06-06flash_{lock,unlock}: merge into one utilMike Frysinger
Now that the utils have equivalent functionality, merge the two source code bases so they can't diverge in the future. Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
2011-06-06flash_{lock,unlock}: merge functionalityMike Frysinger
The flash_lock util has a bit of extra argument checking, and it supports a magic value of "-1" to mean "all blocks". The flash_unlock util supports automatic 2nd/3rd arguments to unlock the whole flash. It also supports multiple bases (not just hex) for selecting the range of the device to unlock. So tweak both utilities so that they have equivalent functionality again by adding the missing features to each. Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
2011-06-06flash_lock/flash_unlock/flash_info: clean up styleMike Frysinger
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
2010-09-27mtd-utils: standardize PROGRAM_NAMEMike Frysinger
Make sure all the utils define PROGRAM_NAME and do so at the start of the file so that sub-headers may assume it exists. Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
2009-12-09flash_unlock: enhancing for unlocking of specified number of blocksVimal Singh
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@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@nokia.com>
2006-10-09Fixup whitespaceJosh Boyer
Signed-off-by: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com>
2006-04-11Initial commitDavid Woodhouse