From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 14vQs4-0001UA-00 for ; Thu, 03 May 2001 22:42:48 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: ebiederman@lnxi.com (Eric W. Biederman) Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Q: interleave logic? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 22:43:12 +0100 Message-ID: <17354.988926192@redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: ebiederman@lnxi.com said: > What do we have nasty half incomplete interleave logic all throughout > the cfi code? > It looks like it could be done more cleanly with a wrapper around the > probe code, and a wrapper around the mapping driver. The chip driver needs to know about the interleave to some extent - it's got to be able to deal with errors on individual chips in the interleave. (How well we actually do that at the moment is a different question, of course.) I thought the macros that were introduced (by Nico?) were roughly the right thing. If you have better suggestions, though, I'm interested. -- dwmw2