From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 213-239-205-147.clients.your-server.de ([213.239.205.147] helo=debian.tglx.de) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.42 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1CANA4-0007pD-HX for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:33:01 -0400 From: Thomas Gleixner To: "Artem B. Bityuckiy" In-Reply-To: <41515E42.3020900@yandex.ru> References: <41515E42.3020900@yandex.ru> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1095920707.2925.3.camel@thomas> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:25:08 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: nand_command Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello Artem, On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 13:13, Artem B. Bityuckiy wrote: > Chips with 256-byte page support only one programm operation like this: > NAND_CMD_SEQIN, , , NAND_CMD_PAGEPRG > Correct? (I can't find any 256-byte page Flash manual to check) Yes, those chips are out of production. > If I'm correct, I propose to change a little the default command > function for "small page" devices (nand_base.c, nand_command). The code > is like this: As this is legacy only and it does not influence the functionality, why bother to have an additional check for something which isnt available anyway. tglx