Okay, fair enough.  I wasn't paying very close attention when I replied.  It still seems awkward to me, but not enough to object (ie. It's not dangerous).

g.

On Jun 16, 2009 7:20 AM, "Wolfram Sang" <w.sang@pengutronix.de> wrote:

> > Grant wondered if we need a bankwidth. IMHO it is needed for now, but I don't > > know if this i...

Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. I am not talking about Albrecht's case.
What I replied to your concern is that bankwidth is used(!) in the underlying
map-ram-driver in mapram_erase() at the moment. Whether this is really needed
could be discussed perhaps, but is beyond the scope of this patch series IMHO.
I'd think this can be addressed in a later series, if needed, although this
could mean that the binding will change (bank-width becoming optional).

Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang ...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAko3nAUACgkQD27XaX1/VRtTkACfW0aUMJHrU3m4DCel0pm5fA6J
WaQAnjGo5fn6JvMHt3Ke/xFTGB1uYT6p
=V9t5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----