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 13wo9L-000439-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:14:03 +0000 Received: from cerebus-ext.cygnus.co.uk ([194.130.39.252] helo=passion.cygnus) by infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 13wo9K-000433-00 for mtd@infradead.org; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:14:02 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Mike Hill , mtd@infradead.org Subject: Re: MTD on intel 28F320B3 flash memory Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:13:53 +0000 Message-ID: <3177.974477633@redhat.com> Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: nico@cam.org said: > But then you have problem with concurent access to the chip... unless > the code is tweaked so both mtd devices share the same spinlock and > wq. Yep. That's not difficult. Actually, I think that's why the struct flchip contains both a spin_lock_t *mutex and the spinlock itself - so that you can point to a spinlock elsewhere if you want to. -- dwmw2 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org