From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from blood.actrix.co.nz ([203.96.16.163]) by canuck.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1EhEJv-0000wW-5C for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:51:39 -0500 From: Charles Manning To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:12:14 +1300 References: <20051129180204.2f79e2ae.vwool@ru.mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <20051129180204.2f79e2ae.vwool@ru.mvista.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200511301112.14512.manningc2@actrix.gen.nz> Cc: Vitaly Wool Subject: Re: [PATCH] treat OOB as a single chunk of oobavail bytes List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wednesday 30 November 2005 04:02, Vitaly Wool wrote: > Hi, > > the patch below implements treating the OOB data as a chunk of _free_ OOB > bytes of mtd->oobavail size. This is what was announced several times. This > patch is a working one (verified with yaffs2 and jffs2), however, it's not > completely ready to work with 16bit NAND flashes. Anyway, I'd like to ask > for a permission to commit it to let other people start using it/report the > problems/etc. etc. > > Of course input of any kind is welcome. > > Best regards, > Vitaly Bloody Marvelous! This is very good news for the yaffs folk. My only concern/query is a taste issue: Should the read_oob funtion be used to do the available read or should is it better to use a different function like read_ecc() using NULL for the data argument? I have enumerated what I believe to be the pros and cons a few times, and I prefer using read_ecc with NULL because this is unambiguous. However this is a taste issue and to me having a solution is better than having an argument! -- CHarles