Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751148AbdFAWXZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:23:25 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:36447 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751105AbdFAWXY (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 18:23:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:23:20 -0700 From: Brian Norris To: Chris Packham Cc: Boris Brezillon , "dwmw2@infradead.org" , "andrew@lunn.ch" , "linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Marek Vasut , Richard Weinberger , Cyrille Pitchen Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mtd: mchp23k256: add partitioning support Message-ID: <20170601222320.GE102137@google.com> References: <20170517053908.26138-1-chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> <20170517053908.26138-4-chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> <20170517172911.5f926712@bbrezillon> <20170601184340.GA102137@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1023 Lines: 25 On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 09:30:07PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > On 02/06/17 06:43, Brian Norris wrote: > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 05:29:11PM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > >> Can we fix allocate_partition() to properly handle the > >> master->erasesize == 0 case instead of doing that? > > > > Is everything actually ready for the eraseblock size to be 0? > > That was my initial motivation for faking it. Understood. I think it's probably better to avoid hacking drivers like you were about to, but I was also curious if anyone had thought through the implications of *not* forcing a non-zero size. > > That would > > seem surprising to many applications, I would think. Can you, for > > instance, even use UBI on such a device? > > I've tried ext2 and I believe Andrew has tried minix fs. We're talking > SRAM so UBI/UBIFS doesn't really provide much benefit for this use-case. Right. But that's not necessarily true for all NO_ERASE devices, so we'd probably want to think about that before allowing it. Brian