From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2][MTD] Add support for > 2GiB MTD devices From: Artem Bityutskiy To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel In-Reply-To: <20080827152534.GB1371@logfs.org> References: <1219817017.18027.149.camel@sauron> <000201c9080d$0bce0d20$6b01a8c0@mvista.com> <20080827093920.1bdb44c2@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1219827692.7107.170.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20080827143416.GA1371@logfs.org> <1219848463.18027.166.camel@sauron> <20080827152534.GB1371@logfs.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:48:07 +0300 Message-Id: <1219988887.4036.7.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: linux-mtd-bounces@lists.infradead.org, 'Bruce Leonard' , Bruce_Leonard@selinc.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tim Anderson , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, 'Andrew Morton' , David Woodhouse , Alan Cox Reply-To: dedekind@infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 17:25 +0200, J=C3=B6rn Engel wrote: > > I would like to make udev creating MTD devices, instead of creating the= m > > by hands. Adding MTD to LDM would anyway introduce corresponding sysfs > > files, right? This means we would have one more interface anyway. >=20 > Could be useful, I don't mind you sending a patch. However, does this > means that MEMGETINFO64 or some other ioctl should not be done? Should > flash_erase open, read and close 8 seperate files instead of doing a > single ioctl? And should our support for large devices wait for the > sysfs support that has been talked about and not done for about two > years already? Up to dwmw2, but I do not mind if the answer to all the above questions is "yes" :-) --=20 Best regards, Artem Bityutskiy (=D0=91=D0=B8=D1=82=D1=8E=D1=86=D0=BA=D0=B8=D0=B9 =D0=90= =D1=80=D1=82=D1=91=D0=BC)