From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from majordomo by infradead.org with local (Exim 3.20 #2) id 14s6q4-0001a7-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:43:00 +0100 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237] helo=passion.cambridge.redhat.com) by infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #2) id 14s6pz-0001Ys-00 for mtd@infradead.org; Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:42:56 +0100 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: =?iso-8859-15?B?S+FyaSBEYXbt8HNzb24=?= Cc: mtd@infradead.org, nico@cam.org Subject: Re: partitions and erase regions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:41:10 +0100 Message-ID: <28157.988134070@redhat.com> Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: kd@flaga.is said: > It sounds reasonable to me. Although I have a problem with the "major" > erazesize in general. The erase regions are in the flash for a reason, > i.e. the chip is not of one "major" erase size but of many erase > sizes, although most of it (untill now, who knows what AMD, Intel and > others might do in the future 8-)) is of one erase size. I have a strong suspicion that we'll never see chips without a 'major' erasesize. Making all clients (such as JFFS2) deal with variable erase sizes is possible, but IMHO suboptimal. If we can avoid that complexity, it would be nice. Perhaps, however, we should provide a way for clients which _do_ know about variable erase regions to write to partitions which don't have a 'major' erasesize. -- dwmw2 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org