From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-bw0-f49.google.com ([209.85.214.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.72 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Pgfzb-0008Cb-JM for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 16:07:12 +0000 Received: by bwz5 with SMTP id 5so2404979bwz.36 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:07:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: MTD concat support for linux and UBI From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Holger Brunck In-Reply-To: <4D3845AE.2040002@keymile.com> References: <4D3845AE.2040002@keymile.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 18:07:03 +0200 Message-ID: <1295712423.3712.7.camel@koala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Stefan Roese , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, "agust@denx.de" , Detlev Zundel Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 15:24 +0100, Holger Brunck wrote: > Hi all, > I have got a general question to the MTD concat feature in Linux. Is it allowed > to concatenate NOR flashes with different writebuffersizes? Currently the code > allows this. > If so I see a problem for different sizes when dealing with UBI volumes > comprehending such flashes. Some days ago some patches were added to adjust the > min I/O size for UBI to the writebuffersize of the flash. If now two flashes > with different writebuffersizes are concatenated whats the way forward? I see > two solutions: > 1) Using the writebuffersize from the flash with the largest writebuffer for min > I/O size in UBI. I think this is the way to go. > 2) Adapting the concat feature in Linux to forbid concatenating flashes with > different writebuffersizes. -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)