Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754398AbYH2KXy (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:23:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751804AbYH2KXp (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:23:45 -0400 Received: from lazybastard.de ([212.112.238.170]:60681 "EHLO longford.logfs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751733AbYH2KXp (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:23:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:23:26 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel To: Artem Bityutskiy Cc: David Woodhouse , linux-mtd-bounces@lists.infradead.org, "'Bruce Leonard'" , Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tim Anderson , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, "'Andrew Morton'" , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2][MTD] Add support for > 2GiB MTD devices Message-ID: <20080829102326.GA27647@logfs.org> References: <1219817017.18027.149.camel@sauron> <000201c9080d$0bce0d20$6b01a8c0@mvista.com> <20080827093920.1bdb44c2@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1219827692.7107.170.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20080827143416.GA1371@logfs.org> <1219848463.18027.166.camel@sauron> <20080827152534.GB1371@logfs.org> <1219988887.4036.7.camel@sauron> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1219988887.4036.7.camel@sauron> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1358 Lines: 33 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/