From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fish.redhat.com ([213.86.99.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 19c1Cp-0003go-31 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:09:19 +0100 From: David Woodhouse To: roger In-Reply-To: <1058094420.2750.13.camel@localhost3.localdomain> References: <1058094420.2750.13.camel@localhost3.localdomain> Message-Id: <1058180967.26819.83.camel@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:09:27 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: intel 440bx unshadow for doc2001 List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 2003-07-13 at 12:08, roger wrote: > If i'm correct, the unshadow code just needs to be written into MTD for > everything to work easily? Seems perfectly reasonable. In theory, we ought to already have the appropriate unshadowing code in drivers/mtd/maps/l440gx.c; it's just that that driver will only then look for NOR flash chips rather than a DiskOnChip. Does it work if you load l440gx.c, watch it fail to find any flash chips, then unload it and load docprobe.c? I'm working on a rewrite of the DiskOnChip drivers; I'll probably make it so that a separate driver can call a 'probe for DiskOnChip at address XXXX' function, then we can make that an option for l440gx and other such drivers rather than having hard-coded tables in the docprobe code itself. -- dwmw2