From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp125.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com ([69.147.65.184]) by bombadil.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1Krq48-0003M2-AZ for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:24:40 +0000 From: David Brownell To: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: goofy mtd m25p80 patches in GIT ... Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:24:38 -0700 References: <200810191535.05617.david-b@pacbell.net> <1224489768.6770.1527.camel@macbook.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <1224489768.6770.1527.camel@macbook.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810200124.38256.david-b@pacbell.net> Cc: Chen Gong-B11801 , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Monday 20 October 2008, David Woodhouse wrote: > I think the interface is fine -- if you ask it to erase the whole chip > (start == 0, len == size), then it'll use a chip erase command if it has > one, or fall back to erasing individual blocks. > > I think David just wanted a cleanup to the nomenclature -- renaming > 'erase_block' to 'erase_chip', perhaps, and changing the #define for the > command? Exactly. Since the existing erase block calls are not doing whole-chip erasure ... and since chip-erase is a *VERY* different operation. The MTD interface just says "erase this stuff", and that patch just added a special case "if is the whole chip, use this operation instead of the existing iterate-over-blocks logic". - Dave