From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from krynn.axis.se ([193.13.178.10]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 16duOd-0003mN-00 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:40:31 +0000 Subject: Re: MTD concat layer From: Jonas Holmberg To: Robert Kaiser Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: 21 Feb 2002 15:51:36 +0100 Message-Id: <1014303096.10758.6.camel@pcjonashg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 16:35, Robert Kaiser wrote: > Hi Jonas, > > On 20 Feb 2002, Jonas Holmberg wrote: > > > I'm ready to do some serious testing now. > > Good! > > > Should I use these patches or > > do you have newer versions? > > The erase function has a bug for which I'm currently developing > a fix. I hope to get it done by tomorrow. The bug does not show > up if you use erase/eraseall, but will probably manifest itself > when using JFFS/JFFS2 on a concatenated device. Yep, I get the following when erasing across chip boundry: JFFS: jffs_write_node: Failed to write, requested 8260, wrote 1 Last[3] is c6a6, datum is 3931 Didn't write all bytes in flash_safe_writev(). Returned -5 JFFS: jffs_write_node: Failed to write, requested 8260, wrote 1 Last[3] is c6a6, datum is 3931 Didn't write all bytes in flash_safe_writev(). Returned -5 JFFS: jffs_write_node: Failed to write, requested 8260, wrote 1 Last[3] is c6a6, datum is 3931 Didn't write all bytes in flash_safe_writev(). Returned -5 JFFS: jffs_write_node: Failed to write, requested 8260, wrote 1 Last[3] is c6a6, datum is 3931 Other than that it seems fine. I have tried mixing CFI and JEDEC chips as well. I'm awaiting your erase-fix. It seems like JFFS uses writev. Are you planning to implement the v-functions? > > > When can we expect to see this in CVS? > > Good question :-). Apparently David is not yet completely convinced > that it should be implemented the way I did. If you do some serious > testing, your test results might help to persuade him (or prove to him > that his scepticism was right). In any case, please share your > results. Is it much work implementing it his way instead? I have no opinion of which is better. Your concat layer looks very clean, but David use to be right :-) /Jonas