From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [85.21.88.2] (helo=mail.dev.rtsoft.ru) by canuck.infradead.org with smtp (Exim 4.54 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1EuVBM-00023t-5K for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 08:29:41 -0500 Message-ID: <43BD1F4D.6090000@ru.mvista.com> Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:29:49 +0300 From: Vitaly Wool MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Juha_Yrj=F6l=E4?= References: <1136235272.8963.21.camel@two.research.nokia.com> <43BD118B.2050606@ru.mvista.com> <1136467206.22022.28.camel@two.research.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <1136467206.22022.28.camel@two.research.nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [JFFS2] Make NAND OOB usage more flexible List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Juha, no, the latest patch is http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2005-December/014648.html. It doesn't touch OneNAND but the required changes are so similar to common NAND that I don't think it's gonna be a problem to extend it for OneNAND. I just didn't bother to; but the approach itself is quite generic. Vitaly Juha Yrjölä wrote: >Hi Vitaly, > >Sorry, I wasn't aware of any patch; I just joined the list. Is this the >patch? > >http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2005-December/014521.html > >If it is, it seems to be ignorant of at least OneNAND. > >However, I do agree that the OOB stuff is not handled well at all in the >current code (even after my patch). When you come up with a better >version, please update the OneNAND code, too. > >As a side note, on OneNAND it'd actually probably be faster to do a one >big write of 64 OOB bytes instead of a lot of 2- or 3-byte writes. >Looks like your patch is paving way for this by moving the OOB handling >lower, which is good. > >So I do agree that for the long term the OOB handling needs rework, but >my patch is a stopgap measure that allows all the devices (NAND and >OneNAND) to work right now. > >BTW, this patch is bad: > >http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2005-December/014522.html > >APIs visible to user-space should _never_ be broken if it's possible to >avoid it. You should implement a backwards-compatibility layer instead >of just removing the old ioctls. > >Cheers, >Juha > >On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 15:31 +0300, ext Vitaly Wool wrote: > > >>Oh my goodness... Maybe just apply my patch for OOB handling and all >>that stuff will go away? >> >>Vitaly >> >>Juha Yrjölä wrote: >> >> >> >>>Many (if not all) OneNAND devices have the free OOB bytes scattered >>>around the whole OOB area in blocks of 2 or 3 bytes. To work around >>>this, the JFFS2 wbuf code needs to consider _all_ the free OOB bytes >>>specified by the oobfree array. >>> >>> > > > > >