From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.innovsys.com (smtp.innovsys.com [66.115.232.196]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2448EDE70A for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:56:22 +1100 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: OF compatible MTD platform RAM driver ? Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:56:13 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200803251823.32039.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com> References: <200803101606.39184.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com><200803251744.46001.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com><47E93010.5090904@ru.mvista.com> <200803251823.32039.laurentp@cse-semaphore.com> From: "Rune Torgersen" To: "Laurent Pinchart" , "Sergei Shtylyov" Cc: ben@simtec.co.uk, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, David Gibson List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 18:02, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >> Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>=20 > Regarding non-volatility nothing prevents a user from using a=20 > volatile RAM as an MTD device, but there's little point in doing so. > Would it be acceptable for the "linear-nvram" specification > not to include > volatile RAM ? ROM chips would be excluded too. Is that an issue ? We actually use a volatile ram (SRAM) as an MTD device. We use it to store info from bootloader and system specific values between resets.