From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from majordomo by infradead.org with local (Exim 3.03 #1) id 12SdV9-0000py-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10:15:35 +0000 Received: from gate.mvhi.com ([194.205.184.34] helo=server.axiom.internal) by infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #1) id 12SdV8-0000ps-00 for mtd@infradead.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10:15:34 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: Alexander Larsson Cc: mtd@infradead.org Subject: Re: mtd comments Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10:15:32 +0000 Message-ID: <2182.952510532@devel2.axiom.internal> Sender: owner-mtd@imladris.demon.co.uk List-ID: alex@cendio.se said: > . > This is mainly used as a bootsector type of thing. The idea seems to > be that if your boot-code is a lot less than 64k you don't waste so > much space. And you can also store configuration data in one of the > smaller sectors, and rewrite it without destroying the boot sector. Options include... 1. Ignore the smaller erasesize - pretend it's 64Kb and force you to erase the whole lot at once. 2. Treat the parts with different erasesize as different logical devices as far as the MTD layer is concerned. 3. Change the MTD interface so it can handle variable sector sizes somehow. As you seem to be implying that the parts with different sector sizes are used for a different purpose than the majority of the flash device, I'm inclined to favour #2 for now. -- dwmw2 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org