From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1REiHD-0005Ra-TB for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:58:20 +0000 Received: by wwg9 with SMTP id 9so820903wwg.18 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:58:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: nand_base.c:nand_get_flash_type() test results From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Angus CLARK Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:57:46 +0300 In-Reply-To: <4E95B1B4.7040603@st.com> References: <4E95B1B4.7040603@st.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <1318600673.12351.131.camel@sauron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 16:26 +0100, Angus CLARK wrote: > Hi All, > > While attempting to add support for some of the more recent NAND devices, I > ended up refactoring nand_get_flash_type() code. The refactoring was primarily > aimed at simplifying the way in which the growing number 'READID' decoding > exceptions could be accommodated. Why not to send the refactored code as well? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy