From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from majordomo by infradead.org with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 13eHuR-0007kF-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:10:07 +0100 Received: from dns.cygnus.co.uk ([194.130.39.3] helo=pasanda.cygnus.co.uk) by infradead.org with smtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 13eHuQ-0007k9-00 for mtd@infradead.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:10:06 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <39D1FF35.68F6B84@cotw.com> References: <39D1FF35.68F6B84@cotw.com> To: "Steven J. Hill" Cc: MTD List Subject: Re: Question on 'doc_read_ecc'... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:10:29 +0100 Message-ID: <23804.970063829@passion.cygnus.co.uk> Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: sjhill@cotw.com said: > If I am understanding things correctly, in 'doc_read_ecc' we prevent > the caller from reading across a 512 byte boundary and that they > cannot read more than 512 bytes at a time. Is this correct for DoC2xxx > devices and should it be the case for NAND devices as well? I believe > that for NAND devices it makes sense since VFS and filesystems on > average assume a 512 byte sector size. Just looking for agreement on > my thought process. Scrap the limitation. It was OK when the only use of doc2000 was NFTL, but now it's broken. doc2000.c ought to do the right thing. -- dwmw2 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org