From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp109.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.208]) by canuck.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Gpgql-0006cN-KL for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:00:59 -0500 From: David Brownell To: Andrew Victor Subject: Re: [Bulk] Re: jffs2_flash_writev(): Non-contiguous write to 00825300 with mtd_dataflash Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:54:07 -0800 References: <20061101115252.26000d78@cad-250-152.norway.atmel.com> <200611290921.02293.david-b@pacbell.net> <1164868198.21731.6.camel@fuzzie.sanpeople.com> In-Reply-To: <1164868198.21731.6.camel@fuzzie.sanpeople.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611292354.07946.david-b@pacbell.net> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Haavard Skinnemoen List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wednesday 29 November 2006 10:29 pm, Andrew Victor wrote: > hi, > > > > - device->flags = MTD_CAP_NORFLASH; > > > + device->flags = MTD_WRITEABLE; > > > > That "NORFLASH" flag always seemed bogus to me, but it was at the > > time the only way to make the MTD core behave. > > Wouldn't it be better to introduce a MTD_CAP_DATAFLASH. > That way if/when more capability flags are added to MTD core, the > dataflash support will be considered and not forgotten about. I have no strong opinion one way or another. Structurally it's maybe a bit more like NAND, and CAP_NANDFLASH == WRITEABLE, so there might not be a _need_ for such a capability now that some of that strangeness is gone ... - Dave