linux-mtd.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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).