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]

Date:	Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:56:56 +0800
From:	Peter Pan <peterpansjtu@...il.com>
To:	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc:	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	David Woodhouse <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 Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> 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.

Update this in v4

Thanks,
Peter Pan