From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from thorgal.et.tudelft.nl ([130.161.40.91]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 19gTf9-0006rX-8W for ; Sat, 26 Jul 2003 19:20:59 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <1059231977.539.2.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> References: <1059147413.28255.40.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> <1059148567.28255.47.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> <1059231977.539.2.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:20:53 +0200 To: David Woodhouse From: "J.D. Bakker" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Handling multiple NAND chips List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 11:06 -0400 26-07-2003, David Woodhouse wrote: >On Sat, 2003-07-26 at 06:22, J.D. Bakker wrote: >> Ah, I see. Are you planning to always treat the NANDs as a linear >> array ? > >Yeah -- I think so. Any reason not to? Not really, if you exclude braindead setups like multiple hot-swappable SmartMedia cards. The only sane setup I could imagine is having one partition per NAND device, but it's not one I would be using myself. Would you expect all devices to have the same size ? JDB [working around oddities in Lattice's ABEL compiler...] -- Riddoch's Myth of computing: Any computer problem is invariably the fault of the closest sysadmin.