Re[2]: RFC: kernel-based PCMCIA ...

[Mike Kilburn <mkilburn@ftel.net>]

David Woodhouse <David.Woodhouse@mvhi.com> wrote:
> 
> My main concern at the moment is producing a standalone driver for the
> DoC2000,
> with FTL built-in to it, for embedded systems using the 2.0 kernel. As soon
> as
> I've done that, I'll be turning back to the generic subsystem design, and
> producing a DoC2000 driver for the new system.

Is there any beta code available for this. We have a PC104 with a 4M boot
flash from M-Systems. The vendor of the PC104 wont give us any hardware 
details on accessing the Flash and they say they are working with M-Systems
to have a driver in a month or so. We dont want to be dependent on them for
a driver.

> 
> As an aside - we may have patent problems with using FTL on anything other 
> than PCMCIA devices. Our position on this is as yet undecided. 
> I've suggested that perhaps the flags for each low-level device should
> include
> a PCMCIA/ NON-PCMCIA bit, and the default configuration of the FTL driver
> should refuse to work with non-PCMCIA devices. I don't really know what else
> we
> can do.

Why would a PCMICA be any different than a Flash on a PC104 cpu card?



To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@imladris.demon.co.uk