From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [216.208.38.106] (helo=lapdancer.baythorne.internal) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 19goPC-0003Hh-Cu for ; Sun, 27 Jul 2003 17:29:54 +0100 From: David Woodhouse To: "J.D. Bakker" In-Reply-To: References: <1059147413.28255.40.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> <1059148567.28255.47.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> <1059313332.9895.3.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> Message-Id: <1059323325.9895.6.camel@lapdancer.baythorne.internal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:28:47 -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 Sun, 2003-07-27 at 09:58, J.D. Bakker wrote: > I was wondering what to do when 'chip' is larger than the maximum > number of NANDs. Currently I silently deselect all devices when that > happens. Well, it'll never be higher than the maximum number passed into nand_scan(). It's a should-never-happen case; I'd rather you BUG() if you're going to check for it at all. > [just tried to insmod my first cut of the lartcan NAND driver -- blew > up with 'partition extends beyond the end of device ""' and a > bunch of divisions by zero. Back to the drawing board...] Leave out the partitioning until the basic NAND code is working? -- dwmw2