From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 161qYJ-0003Rg-00 for ; Thu, 08 Nov 2001 14:53:11 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <82B1591A280FD411B91200D0B75B484A015F5D4D@sis-uk-msg01.altera.com> References: <82B1591A280FD411B91200D0B75B484A015F5D4D@sis-uk-msg01.altera.com> To: Clive Davies Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Intel protection register read Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 15:02:18 +0000 Message-ID: <24871.1005231738@redhat.com> Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: cdavies@altera.com said: > Hmm, this is a problem. Am I correct in thinking that the code only > reads the cfi tables from the first device and assumes that any > additional devices are of the same type? (That's what it looks like to > me) If so there is no way to read the protection register data from > subsequent devices. You can do whatever you like in ->read_prot_reg(), so there's nothing that prevents you from doing this. > I reckon the best way to handle the multiple/interleaved chip > configuration would be to concatenate all the protection registers > together into one block. All the other interfaces I can think of would > require a chip number to be passed in, which doesn't seem that nice to > me. Does that sound reasonable? Seems like a sane approach to me. We possibly need to couple it with a way to query the size of protection register data available. > > Also, isn't it possible to _write_ to the user areas of the chips? > > Yes it is, but I haven't implemented that because I don't need it. If > adding writes is a condition for getting read functionality into cvs > then I can do that too. Implementing it isn't absolutely necessary, although it would be nice. We do have to make sure that the framework is sane, and whoever _does_ finally implement writes isn't going to have to change stuff around for it, though. -- dwmw2