Hi Paul, Sorry for the delay. On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:29:01AM +0400, Paul Fertser wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 09:31:21PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:27:36PM +0400, Paul Fertser wrote: > > > This guards for the cases where the initial offset or byte count is > > > not aligned with regard to erase block size, thus making it impossible > > > for erase to do any harm to the nearby sectors. > > > > I'm unsure about this one. The other flash drivers allow to erase areas > > which are not eraseblock aligned. Maybe we should instead add a > > cdev->erasesize field. Then we can add this check in the generic code > > and fix this for all drivers. > > I guess i was too surprised by seeing an endless loop when i tried to > erase an area of the wrong size (the counter underflowed) to think > about it in a less narrow-minded way, sorry, you're right of course. > > Talking about generalisation, shouldn't the m25p80 driver be hooked > into the mtd subsystem to allow running ubi on top of it? By the > cursory look it seems to be doable without much effort. Yes, it probably should. The cfi driver also is not a mtd driver but has some mtd glue code. Maybe the same approach (even better the same code) can be used here. > > Another question: should i repost this early (questionable) series you > seem to have missed[1]? > > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/barebox/2011-August/004483.html Not necessary, I just applied it. Thanks Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
