From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dhcp695.linuxsymposium.org ([209.151.10.193] helo=lapdancer.baythorne.internal) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 19g4wd-0003W3-6C for ; Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:57:23 +0100 From: David Woodhouse To: "J.D. Bakker" In-Reply-To: References: <1059147413.28255.40.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> Message-Id: <1059148567.28255.47.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:56:09 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 11:51, J.D. Bakker wrote: > I have a two-hour old CVS; where should I look ? The fact that select_chip() now takes a 'chip_number' argument, that nand_scan() now takes a 'max_chips' argument and probes for up to that many... next is to fix the read/write/erase functions to select the _correct_ chip according to the address, etc. > Does it *help* to have separate data/CLE/ALE ? Probably not. What may help, and to be honest I won't be 100% sure till we actually come to implement it, is having separate FR/B# so you can happily poll for completion and leave multiple chips _busy_ independently. -- dwmw2