From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wall.comdev.cc ([63.150.62.162] helo=cleanup.comdev.cc) by pentafluge.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 16ReyH-00013v-00 for ; Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:46:41 +0000 Message-ID: <3C487D9A.D85DDC3D@comdev.cc> Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:55:06 -0800 From: Adam Wozniak MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: optimum geometry References: <3C48504B.68F8FE7F@comdev.cc> <20020118010528.A22777@swing.comdev.cc> <28158.1011372920@redhat.com> 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: I've got 8 x 8 bit chips forming my 64 bit wide flash area. An erase block on a single chip is 128K bytes, so I've really got 128K * 8 == 1024 K == 1 M erase blocks. My JFFS2 partition is 96 Megs, so I've only got 96 erase blocks. I'm beginning to fear that this is far from optimum. What is an optimum erase block size? I could drop back and rewrite the MTD driver to address each chip seperately, but I'm concerned that would be both messy and tough on performance. Thoughts? -- Adam Wozniak (KG6GZR) COM DEV Wireless - Digital and Software Systems awozniak@comdev.cc 3450 Broad St. 107, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 http://www.comdev.cc Voice: (805) 544-1089 Fax: (805) 544-2055