Re: [PATCH] mtd: mtdraw: drop ioctl callback for mtdraw device

From: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: mtdraw: drop ioctl callback for mtdraw device
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 22:28:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r49s71bo.fsf@free.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131204163251.GQ24559@pengutronix.de> (Sascha Hauer's message of "Wed, 4 Dec 2013 17:32:51 +0100")

Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 11:04:45PM +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> For MEMGETINFO we can directly call into _mtd_ioctl(), but for
> MEM[SG]ETBADBLOCK the offsets would have to be corrected first. Is this
> worth the effort? Otherwise we could do something like:
>
> int mtdraw_ioctl(struct cdev *cdev, int request, void *buf)
> {
> 	struct mtd_info *mtd = to_mtd(cdev);
>
> 	switch (request) {
> 	case MEMGETINFO:
> 		return mtd_memgetinfo(mtd, buf);
> 	default:
> 		return -EINVAL;
> 	}
> }

Yes, that looks like the right thing to do.
I don't think MEM[GS]ETBADBLOCK are used anywhere at this time for raw
devices. And I'm not convinced it is worth the effort just as you.

And let's be pragmatic : is somebody needs the badblock ioctls, he'll add them
:) By now, I'm happy with your patch.

Cheers.

-- 
Robert

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox