From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net ([93.183.12.31]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1VTS0k-00057n-85 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:47:18 +0000 Message-ID: <5253B860.5030604@nsn.com> Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:46:40 +0200 From: Alexander Sverdlin MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ext Brian Norris Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: phram: Make phram 64-bit compatible References: <524C4CF5.7060601@nsn.com> <20131007174943.GB23337@ld-irv-0074.broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <20131007174943.GB23337@ld-irv-0074.broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Joern Engel , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, David Woodhouse , Linux Kernel List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi! On 10/07/2013 07:49 PM, ext Brian Norris wrote: > Are we (MTD) holding a revolutionary position against the standard > kernel libraries, which recognize [KkMmGg] prefixes, but not [kMG]i > prefixes? Should we extend memparse() to accept either form? Or would > doing so simply pollute the library and not really satisfy anyone? I was also irritated re-inventing the wheel here, but the problem is -- millions of people out there have their startup scripts and uboot environments for phram, who expect this just to work with the next kernel upgrade... -- Best regards, Alexander Sverdlin.