Re: [PATCH 3/4] mtd: mchp23k256: add partitioning support

Brian Norris
2017-06-08T23:21:36Z

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:04:06AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> BTW, MTD_NO_ERASE is not the only problem we have with UBI or JFFS2.
> Are we guaranteed that an erase operation fills an eraseblock with
> ones? Don't we have mem technologies that are filling them with zeros?
> Note that mtdram is artificially setting the mem-region to 0xff in its
> dummy erase operation, so maybe it's a implicit rule that ->_erase() is
> supposed to fill eraseblocks with 0xff.

I've wondered about the general assumption. But mtdram isn't really a
good example, because it clearly calls itself a "test mtd device". So it
makes sense it would emulate common MTDs (i.e., flash memory).

Brian