Correct the calculation of the block number to erase.

The use of ">> 5" to calculate the block number from the chunk number
was incorrect for the actual value of PAGES_PER_BLOCK (64).

At the same time, make this less error prone.

diff --git a/mtdemul/nandemul2k.c b/mtdemul/nandemul2k.c
index eef68dd6d30d54574db699541133dd1ac131a204..6f10746e3e433f0752c7f5e39b240f517924e841 100644 (file)
--- a/mtdemul/nandemul2k.c
+++ b/mtdemul/nandemul2k.c
@@ -44,13 +44,14 @@
 
 
 
-#define EM_SIZE_IN_MEG 4
-#define PAGE_DATA_SIZE  (2048)
-#define PAGE_SPARE_SIZE (64)
-#define PAGES_PER_BLOCK (64)
 #define NAND_SHIFT      (11)   // Shifter for 2k
+#define PAGE_DATA_SIZE  (1 << NAND_SHIFT)
+#define PAGE_SPARE_SIZE (64)
+#define BLK_SHIFT      6
+#define PAGES_PER_BLOCK (1 << BLK_SHIFT)       // = 64
 
 
+#define EM_SIZE_IN_MEG 4
 #define EM_SIZE_IN_BYTES (EM_SIZE_IN_MEG * (1<<20))
 
 #define PAGE_TOTAL_SIZE (PAGE_DATA_SIZE+PAGE_SPARE_SIZE)
@@ -557,8 +558,8 @@ static int nand_erase (struct mtd_info *mtd, struct erase_info *instr)
                return -EINVAL;
        }
 
-       nBlocks = instr->len >> (NAND_SHIFT + 5);
-       block = instr->addr >> (NAND_SHIFT + 5);
+       nBlocks = instr->len >> (NAND_SHIFT + BLK_SHIFT);
+       block = instr->addr >> (NAND_SHIFT + BLK_SHIFT);
 
        for(i = 0; i < nBlocks; i++)
        {