[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OFF4CB8B0C.41A8912A-ON882574B3.00613BB8-882574B3.0061CE65@selinc.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:48:32 -0700
From: Bruce_Leonard@...inc.com
To: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@....net>
Cc: Bruce Leonard <brucle@...thlink.net>,
Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mtd-bounces@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add support for > 2GiB MTD devices
linux-mtd-bounces@...ts.infradead.org wrote on 08/27/2008 02:52:24 PM:
> On 27.08.2008 20:51, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Bruce_Leonard@...inc.com wrote:
> >
> >> I'm still reluctant to change size to a 64-bit value. There's a
vague
> >> recolection of early conversations on the list that there would be
little
> >> acceptance for that. And that probably has to do with the ongoing
> >> conversation about ABI changes. What I could do to eliminate the
> >> multiplication is introduce the same concept that the NAND layer
uses,
> >> shift values. After all, erasesize should always be a power of 2,
making
> >> that a power of 2 multiplication which can be done via shifts. By
> >> changing erasesize to erasesize_shift, I'd get something like this:
> >>
> >> return a->num_eraseblocks == 0 ? a->size : a->num_eraseblocks <<
> >> a->erasesize_shift
> >>
> >> How would that suit you?
> >>
> >
> > Are you sure it's always going to be a power of 2?
> >
> > What if someone targets a board with 3 chips wired to shared address
> > and parallel data buses?
> >
> > Or if someone makes a weird chip? Or if you can format it in
> > different ways according to desired ECC level (like you can with CDs)?
> >
>
> IIRC I saw a datasheet for such a chip (selectable erasesize with
> non-power-of-2 default) some weeks ago and it had entered production a
> few months ago. The erasesize was alwas a multiple of 16, though. Sorry
> for not remembering more details.
>
> Regards,
> Carl-Daniel
>
Well in that case I don't see that there's much option other than a
multiplication. If there were an odd number of eraseblocks (i.e., 3
chips) you could still do the shifting operations. But if someone has
come up with a flash part that has a non-power of two sector/erasesize,
then there's no way to do it by shift. I supose I could just change
erasesize to size64, make it a 64-bit type and do this:
return a->num_eraseblocks == 0 ? a->size : a->size64
Doesn't seem quite as elegant, but it is simpler. What ever I do, I can't
change the meaning or type of size. That's an kernel <=> userspace ABI
change, and we know what happens when I try to do that ;).
Bruce
------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain SEL confidential information. The opinions
expressed are not necessarily those of SEL. Any unauthorized disclosure,
distribution or other use is prohibited. If you received this e-mail in
error, please notify the sender, permanently delete it, and destroy any
printout.
Thank you.
------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists