Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:51:32 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20081114.005132.78730934.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
To: vapier.adi@gmail.com
Cc: vapier@gentoo.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, dwmw2@infradead.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: unify mtd partition/device registration
From: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <8bd0f97a0811130651k11c52a53j91c80cf196e9f66a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20081113.224350.18312549.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
	<20081113.232823.125897716.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
	<8bd0f97a0811130651k11c52a53j91c80cf196e9f66a@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1197
Lines: 33

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:51:01 -0500, "Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Automatic fallback to mtd_device in parse_mtd() is convenient but
> > somewhat unflexible...
> 
> we could just have it do it all the time.  i dont see a problem with
> exposing the entire block device the whole time ?  i know for the
> driver or two of mine, i'm fine with it.
> 
> ...
>        ret = parse_mtd_partitions(mtd, probe_types, &parts, 0);
>        if (ret > 0) {
>                ret = add_mtd_partitions(mtd, parts, ret);
>                kfree(parts);
>        } else if (nr_parts)
>                ret = add_mtd_partitions(mtd, parts, nr_parts);
>        if (ret)
>                return ret;
> #endif
> 
>        return add_mtd_device(mtd);

I'm OK with this.  But not sure all current mtd partition users.

Are you going to convert all parse_mtd_partitions() call?  Maybe some
people do not want to change /dev/mtd numbers...

---
Atsushi Nemoto
--
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/