From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] ident=root) by imladris.mvhi.com with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 10kTVA-0002Rv-00 for mtd@imladris.demon.co.uk; Thu, 20 May 1999 15:08:48 +0100 Received: from pop3.mail.demon.net by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.0.0) for mtd@imladris.demon.co.uk (multi-drop); Thu, 20 May 1999 15:08:48 +0100 (BST) Received: from punt-1.mail.demon.net by mailstore for mtd@imladris.demon.co.uk id 927209316:10:12706:10; Thu, 20 May 99 14:08:36 GMT Message-Id: <199905181403.HAA02853@devel.ftel.com> Date: Tue, 18 May 1999 07:03:45 -0700 (PDT) To: David.Woodhouse@mvhi.com Cc: Linux-MTD mailing list From: Mike Kilburn Subject: Re[2]: RFC: kernel-based PCMCIA ... In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: David Woodhouse List-ID: David Woodhouse 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