linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/11] mtd: nand_bbt: introduce independent nand BBT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160325095015.341a11eb@bbrezillon>
Date:	Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:50:15 +0100
From:	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Peter Pan <peterpansjtu@...il.com>
Cc:	computersforpeace@...il.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	karlzhang@...ron.com, beanhuo@...ron.com, xuejiancheng@...wei.com,
	Peter Pan <peterpandong@...ron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] mtd: nand_bbt: introduce independent nand BBT

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 02:47:53 +0000
Peter Pan <peterpansjtu@...il.com> wrote:

> Sorry for send the v3 out late. I went through a busy time in the past
> two month.
> 
> Currently nand_bbt.c is tied with struct nand_chip, and it makes other
> NAND family chips hard to use nand_bbt.c. Maybe it's the reason why
> onenand has own bbt(onenand_bbt.c).
> 
> Separate struct nand_chip from BBT code can make current BBT shareable.
> We create struct nand_bbt to take place of nand_chip in nand_bbt.c.
> Struct nand_bbt contains all the information BBT needed from outside and
> it should be embedded into NAND family chip struct (such as struct nand_chip).
> 
> Below is mtd folder structure we want:
> 	drivers/mtd/nand/<all-nand-core-code>
> 	drivers/mtd/nand/raw/<raw-nand-controller-drivers>
> 	drivers/mtd/nand/spi/<spi-nand-code>
> 	drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/<onenand-code>
> 	drivers/mtd/nand/chips/<manufacturer-spcific-code>

Hm, we should have a chips directory under each interface type, because
vendor specific handling is dependent on the NAND interface.
Otherwise, yes, that's the idea.


-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com