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 16mxNS-0002Hl-00 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:40:42 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: "Stephen Bardsley" Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: bad block recovery Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:52:10 +0000 Message-ID: <3886.1016459530@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: sbardsley@rlwinc.com said: > I took a quick look at the code and see that meminfo.erasesize is > used to scale various values. I don't see why 8Kb is a limit. I have > found that my chip's erase size to be 16Kb; is there any way for me to > use nftl_format? If necessary, I don't mind modifying the code, but I > don't want to screw it up. Any hints? You _ought_ to be able to just remove that check, if you first verify that we'll do the right thing through the rest of the code rather than using a hardcoded 8KiB. I put the check in just because I'd never tested the larger erase size. -- dwmw2