From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from f147.law11.hotmail.com ([64.4.17.147] helo=hotmail.com) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 189RF8-00031V-00 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2002 14:33:18 +0000 From: "J B" To: joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org Subject: cfi_cmdset_0020.c Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 09:03:03 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: Sender: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Jörn, I have a couple of questions reguarding the patch you released a while ago to support the M58LW064A STMicro flash chip. I noticed that you set the eccsize in the mtd_info structure to 8, and in your patch for jffs2, you used this as the size of the wbuf for writes in nor_wbuf.c. Isn't this value really the minimum buffer size for the flash chip? If so, since your patch for jffs2 is based on NAND chips, wouldn't it make more sense to use the oobblock variable in the mtd_info structure to represent the size of the buffer? There could be other reasons you used eccsize that I am missing and if so please forgive my ignorance ;). Also, is there a reason you decided to use the minimum buffer size for the wbuf? According to the datasheet for those chips, the buffer can hold up to 32 bytes. Wouldn't using the maximum buffer available make things more efficient? Thanks, J _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963