Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: renumber conflicting BBT flags

[Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 21:53 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> The NAND_USE_FLASH_BBT_NO_OOB and NAND_CREATE_EMPTY_BBT flags conflict
> with the NAND_BBT_SCANBYTE1AND6 and NAND_BBT_DYNAMICSTRUCT flags,
> respectively. This change will allow us to utilize these options
> independently.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/mtd/nand.h |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h
> index ae67ef5..80b471b 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h
> @@ -237,9 +237,9 @@ typedef enum {
>   * If passed additionally to NAND_USE_FLASH_BBT then BBT code will not touch
>   * the OOB area.
>   */
> -#define NAND_USE_FLASH_BBT_NO_OOB	0x00100000
> +#define NAND_USE_FLASH_BBT_NO_OOB	0x00800000
>  /* Create an empty BBT with no vendor information if the BBT is available */
> -#define NAND_CREATE_EMPTY_BBT		0x00200000
> +#define NAND_CREATE_EMPTY_BBT		0x01000000

Hmm, it seems that the issue is that flags which belong to the same
"space" should be in a single file. AFAICS, we have 2 spaces:

1. Chip flags
2. BBT flags

They are 2 different things. But some of the flags are shared. And this
is quite subtle thing.

What I think we should do instead is to avoid sharing the same symbolic
constant between 2 different spaces. Is this possible?

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)