From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
To: dedekind1@gmail.com
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@gmail.com>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: renumber conflicting BBT flags
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 01:04:05 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D96D875.9000809@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1301576306.2828.68.camel@localhost>
Hello,
On 3/31/2011 5:58 AM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Hmm, it seems that the issue is that flags which belong to the same
> "space" should be in a single file. AFAICS, we have 2 spaces:
>
> 1. Chip flags
> 2. BBT flags
>
> They are 2 different things. But some of the flags are shared. And this
> is quite subtle thing.
>
> What I think we should do instead is to avoid sharing the same symbolic
> constant between 2 different spaces. Is this possible?
I'm not quite sure. Many of the "shared" options go into the
nand_chip.options field only so that they can later be copied to a
nand_bbt_descr.options field. I think this is only out of convenience so
that we can detect chip-based BBT options like 'scan 2nd page' before we
have actually allocated and assigned our bbt descriptors. For these
flags, we can use a new field in nand_chip, like a
"nand_chip.bbm_options". Then, many shared flags would really become
"early BBT flags" that could safely be copied over without conflict.
Does this make any sense or are there holes in my idea here? I can try
an RFC patch soon if that would help.
Thanks,
Brian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-02 8:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-19 4:53 [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: renumber conflicting BBT flags Brian Norris
2011-03-19 4:53 ` [PATCH 2/2] mtd: nand: dynamic allocation of flash-based BBT structs Brian Norris
2011-03-31 12:58 ` [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: renumber conflicting BBT flags Artem Bityutskiy
2011-04-02 8:04 ` Brian Norris [this message]
2011-04-04 7:52 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2011-04-20 7:13 ` [RFC] mtd: nand: separate chip options / bbt_options Brian Norris
2011-04-22 8:02 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2011-05-25 18:15 ` Brian Norris
2011-05-26 8:04 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2011-05-31 17:25 ` Brian Norris
2011-04-04 7:58 ` [PATCH 1/2] mtd: nand: renumber conflicting BBT flags Artem Bityutskiy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D96D875.9000809@gmail.com \
--to=computersforpeace@gmail.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=cernekee@gmail.com \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).