runners: Tweaked ERASE_WIDTH to prefer ERASE_SIZE over BLOCK_SIZE
Mostly for consistency with other defines. In theory this better maps to BLOCK_SIZE as a logical multiple of the physical ERASE_SIZE, but the lack of subblock erasing (what would that even look like?) means this should have no affect on simulated timings. It does change the number of erases, however, in case that is useful for something.
This commit is contained in:
@@ -90,7 +90,9 @@
|
||||
BENCH_DEFINE(NOR_PROG_WIDTH, (DISK_SIM == 0)
|
||||
? LFS3_MIN(256, BLOCK_SIZE)
|
||||
: BLOCK_SIZE )
|
||||
BENCH_DEFINE(NOR_ERASE_WIDTH, BLOCK_SIZE )
|
||||
BENCH_DEFINE(NOR_ERASE_WIDTH, (DISK_SIM == 0)
|
||||
? LFS3_MIN(ERASE_SIZE, BLOCK_SIZE)
|
||||
: BLOCK_SIZE )
|
||||
BENCH_DEFINE(NOR_READ_TIMING, (DISK_SIM == 0) ? 0 : 0 )
|
||||
BENCH_DEFINE(NOR_PROG_TIMING, (DISK_SIM == 0) ? 1563 : 0 )
|
||||
BENCH_DEFINE(NOR_ERASE_TIMING, (DISK_SIM == 0) ? 10986 : 0 )
|
||||
@@ -128,7 +130,9 @@
|
||||
BENCH_DEFINE(NAND_PROG_WIDTH, (DISK_SIM == 0)
|
||||
? LFS3_MIN(2048, BLOCK_SIZE)
|
||||
: BLOCK_SIZE )
|
||||
BENCH_DEFINE(NAND_ERASE_WIDTH, BLOCK_SIZE )
|
||||
BENCH_DEFINE(NAND_ERASE_WIDTH, (DISK_SIM == 0)
|
||||
? LFS3_MIN(ERASE_SIZE, BLOCK_SIZE)
|
||||
: BLOCK_SIZE )
|
||||
BENCH_DEFINE(NAND_READ_TIMING, (DISK_SIM == 0) ? 12 : 0 )
|
||||
BENCH_DEFINE(NAND_PROG_TIMING, (DISK_SIM == 0) ? 122 : 0 )
|
||||
BENCH_DEFINE(NAND_ERASE_TIMING, (DISK_SIM == 0) ? 15 : 0 )
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user