Josh Boyer wrote:
> On 6/30/06, Angelos Manousarides <amanous@inaccessnetworks.com> wrote::
> 
>>The code in mtdpart.c does not propagate erase region information to the
>>slave device. I have ckeched with the git repository online and it is
>>still the same. Here is the code I am talking about, it is the only reference
>>in regions in mtdpard.c:
>>
>>    if (master->numeraseregions>1) {
>>      /* Deal with variable erase size stuff */
>>      int i;
>>      struct mtd_erase_region_info *regions = master->eraseregions;
>>
>>      /* Find the first erase regions which is part of this partition. */
>>      for (i=0; i < master->numeraseregions && slave->offset >= regions[i].offset; i++)
>>        ;
>>
>>      for (i--; i < master->numeraseregions && slave->offset + slave->mtd.size > regions[i].offset; i++) {
>>        if (slave->mtd.erasesize < regions[i].erasesize) {
>>          slave->mtd.erasesize = regions[i].erasesize;
>>        }
>>      }
>>    } else {
>>      /* Single erase size */
>>      slave->mtd.erasesize = master->erasesize;
>>    }
>>
>>I have changed this to allocate slave->mtd.eraseregions and set
>>slave->mtd.numeraseregions properly.
>>
>>If this is not needed, then definately I am missing something here.
> 
> 
> It should really only make a difference if a partition actually spans
> two different erase regions.  And even then I'm not sure it really
> matters much.  But I suppose there is nothing bad about doing it
> correctly.

Here is the patch. Identation sucks, but it sucked in the original file 
as well.

-- 
Angelos Manousaridis