From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([2001:a60:0:28:0:1:25:1])
 by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux))
 id 1SpjO5-0003gz-MS
 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:10:44 +0000
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
To: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: add a new macro about the subpage write
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:10:35 +0200
References: <1341293533-2214-1-git-send-email-b32955@freescale.com>
 <201207131853.46136.marex@denx.de>
 <CAN8TOE_XF=ou5Nb9ErNhVM4TRHkAitAjGbien5xZTGz_sZZFUA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN8TOE_XF=ou5Nb9ErNhVM4TRHkAitAjGbien5xZTGz_sZZFUA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201207131910.35337.marex@denx.de>
Cc: dedekind1@gmail.com, Jan Weitzel <j.weitzel@phytec.de>,
 Huang Shijie <b32955@freescale.com>, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
 Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>, Huang Shijie <shijie8@gmail.com>
List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list <linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/options/linux-mtd>,
 <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd>,
 <mailto:linux-mtd-request@lists.infradead.org?subject=subscribe>

Dear Brian Norris,

> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> >> On 07/13/2012 11:08 AM, Huang Shijie wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> >> >> Why not remove the mask?
> >> > 
> >> > I do not understand why this line was added here,  was it added on
> >> > purpose? so I am not sure whether we can just remove this line.
> >> 
> >> If whoever wanted that line to be there cared enough, they could have
> >> justified it with a comment (in the code, in the changelog, or in one of
> >> these threads).  We can't just let cruft sit there (or worse, produce
> >> more cruft to work around existing cruft) just because we don't know
> >> exactly what the original author was thinking.  It appears to just have
> >> been a misguided attempt at enforcing any given option to come from only
> >> one place.
> > 
> > I think it was there to allow having two different chips on the same NAND
> > bus ... or something. But this is just a guess. Anyway, it proved
> > irrelevant, so let's drop it.
> 
> I agree. Then review/test/ack my patch that I just sent :)

It's in the queue, as I'm really interested to see this finally fixed.

> Brian

Best regards,
Marek Vasut