Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Aug 2010 04:27:38 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 1/2] mtdpart: memory accessor interface for MTD layer |
| |
--- On Wed, 8/4/10, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > Point is to ensure that enough of the right context > > information is available to initialize correctly. > > So the right data is extracted and passed on.
And also, ISTR, that the mechanism is general enough to work with both MTD and EEPROM ...
> > Forgive me if I'm being dim (and in particular, please > forgive me if I'm > going over something that was already discussed; I know > it's been a > while).
I also am at risk of getting lost in a pile of hypotheticals which have been left behind earlier in these threads.
But I don't see why it needs to be passed through > the core MTD code. > > To take the simple case of an unpartitioned MTD device -- > why can't the > map driver (or whatever) just call the maccessor setup > function for > itself, directly, right after calling add_mtd_device() with > its newly-probed MTD device?
No idea, except that doing it once rather than modifying every driver would seem healthier. Surely changing all drivers is a Bad Thing.
> > And for partitions, why can't it do the same, on the > appropriate partition. > > OK, the answer to the latter question is that you don't > actually *have* > the pointers to each partition you register. But that's > easily fixed. > > If we make add_mtd_partitions() take an extra 'struct > mtd_info **' > argument and put pointers to the slave mtd 'devices' into > that, it means > that your board driver *can* reliably get the mtd pointer > for the fourth > partition, or whatever it needs. And can then just do the > memory > accessor setup for itself. > > Isn't that enough?
Might be. Not my patch though... You asked why the context was needed along with the partition data (otherwise not available); I answered.
Still haven't seen a better patch though.
| |