Re: how to use jff2 on UBI layer?

Josh Boyer
2006-07-31T13:52:36Z

On 7/31/06, Artem B. Bityutskiy <dedekind@yandex.ru> wrote:
> Artem B. Bityutskiy wrote:
>
> >> For what it's worth, I personally prefer the gluebi approach. Or at
> >> least it's design. I don't see why UBI cannot add_mtd_device for
> >> every volume that is found within the overall MTD given to it.
> >
> > Just because it's strange from the design POV. UBI != MTD device
> > semantically => any attempt to access UBI as MTD device is a dirty hack.
>
> Err, I have to refine my position Of course, the idea itself is OK - it
> is useful to make MTD-oriented software work on top of UBI. But it is
> still a hack, just because UBI != MTD subset, strictly speaking.

So now that you've agreed the idea of gluebi is OK, could you please
revert your changes in the ubi-2.6 tree? As it stands right now,
there is no tree to even generate a gluebi patch against. The
ubi-2.6.git tree can't be used since it currently has your
implementation, and the mtd-2.6.git tree can't be used since it lacks
the base UBI support.

If you could revert those, it would allow a patch to be generated and
sent out for gluebi so that everyone could see the positives/negatives
of each approach.

(Obviously you can keep your changes in a different tree under your
user account)

josh