From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dwmw2@infradead.org (David Woodhouse)
Date: 17 Mar 2003 08:47:56 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Fix stack usage for amd_flash.c
In-Reply-To: <3C6BEE8B5E1BAC42905A93F13004E8AB01CAF576@mailse01.se.axis.com>
References: <3C6BEE8B5E1BAC42905A93F13004E8AB01CAF576@mailse01.se.axis.com>
Message-ID: <1047890876.28282.5.camel@passion.cambridge.redhat.com>
To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 08:36, Jonas Holmberg wrote:
> [ J??rn Engel wrote: ]
> > On Fri, 14 March 2003 16:05:10 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > Also note that all but the CFI-based drivers are deprecated. We have
> > > old-style probes which allow us to use the CFI back-end drivers with
> > > non-CFI chips anyway.
> > 
> > Right. But since 2.[567] is going towards 4k kernel stack, those
> > drivers should be fixed or revomed. If you don't remove it, I'll try
> > to fix it. :)
> 
> We're still using the amd_flash-driver a lot because I haven't got time
> to try out the jedec_probe since the toggle-bit stuff was added in the
> CFI driver. 

Yep, that's why I haven't actually _removed_ the other drivers; just
marked them deprecated. I'm sort of planning to remove them in 2.7.

> I made some rough tests just before that, and jedec_probe +
> CFI driver turned out to be much slower than amd_flash. But then the CFI
> driver was modified... I'll try to get some time to test them again soon
> and maybe even do something about it.

That'd be useful -- thanks. The CFI cmdset 0002 driver could do with a
little more loving :) 

Btw, your mail landed in my spam folder and got bounced from the MTD
list due to missing In-Reply-To: and References: headers. 

-- 
dwmw2