From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from patan.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 15NNCM-0003te-00 for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2001 00:27:14 +0100 Received: from hsmtv32a.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.122.36]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA28976 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:32:54 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (natbox [129.145.120.47]) by hsmtv32a.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id QAA03965 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3B576FA9.C36441A@sun.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:39:21 -0700 From: Tim Hockin MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: writing to flash Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Is there a reason nothing uses copy_to() methods except map_ram? It seems strange that for every byte I want to write to my flash chip, I have to execute 3 one-byte writes, when I could use copy_to(). Is there any reason we don't? -- Tim Hockin Systems Software Engineer Sun Microsystems, Cobalt Server Appliances thockin@sun.com