From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from majordomo by infradead.org with local (Exim 3.16 #2) id 13woO2-0004Aj-00 for mtd-list@infradead.org; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:29:14 +0000 Received: from cerebus-ext.cygnus.co.uk ([194.130.39.252] helo=passion.cygnus) by infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.16 #2) id 13woO1-0004Ac-00 for mtd@infradead.org; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:29:13 +0000 From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: References: To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Mike Hill , mtd@infradead.org Subject: Re: MTD on intel 28F320B3 flash memory Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:29:06 +0000 Message-ID: <4577.974478546@redhat.com> Sender: owner-mtd@infradead.org List-ID: nico@cam.org said: > But then you have problem with concurent access to the chip... unless > the code is tweaked so both mtd devices share the same spinlock and > wq. Upon further consideration... They can just be different 'partitions' of the same underlying device - they only appear as two separate devices to the upper layers - just like normal MTD partitioning. All we have to do is make the erase routine aware of the nature of the chip, and make sure it correctly erases the correct amount of data, according to the length passed in as part of the erase request. We have to do that anyway, even in the case where we want to pretend it's all 64KiB. Then it doesn't matter if the registered MTD partitions actually have different erase sizes. -- dwmw2 To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@infradead.org