[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080829102326.GA27647@logfs.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:23:26 +0200
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...radead.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
linux-mtd-bounces@...ts.infradead.org,
'Bruce Leonard' <brucle@...thlink.net>,
Bruce_Leonard@...inc.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tim Anderson <tanderson@...sta.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
'Andrew Morton' <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2][MTD] Add support for > 2GiB MTD devices
On Fri, 29 August 2008 08:48:07 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 17:25 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> >
> > Could be useful, I don't mind you sending a patch. However, does this
> > means that MEMGETINFO64 or some other ioctl should not be done? Should
> > flash_erase open, read and close 8 seperate files instead of doing a
> > single ioctl? And should our support for large devices wait for the
> > sysfs support that has been talked about and not done for about two
> > years already?
>
> Up to dwmw2, but I do not mind if the answer to all the above questions
> is "yes" :-)
Well, I personally think a "yes" to the last question would be utter
madness. Whoever answers that should better come up with an alternative
patch for sysfs support pronto.
Large flashes are not a one-off cases where a single manufacturer had a
rather bizarre design. Their numbers will continually increase. And
not supporting an ever-increasing class of hardware is simply not an
option.
Jörn
--
on a false concept. This concept is that
people actually want to look at source code.
-- Rob Enderle
--
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