Messages in this thread | | | From | Richard Weinberger <> | Date | Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:24:18 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 00/46] Nandsim facelift (part I of II) |
| |
Boris,
sorry for the late answer. I was not on CC, therefore this mail was unnoticed by me. :-(
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote: > Daniel, Richard, > > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:43:29 +0200 > Daniel Walter <dwalter@sigma-star.at> wrote: > >> Changes since V1: >> Incooperate feedback for nand_cleanup() >> Improve commit messages
[..-]
> I really like the new approach for 2 reasons: > 1/ it allows creating several NAND devs, and you can do that after the > module has been loaded. > 2/ it fixes the partial NAND detection support by allowing one to > describe its NAND in term of page size, eraseblock size, oob > size, ... > > But I'm wondering if we should not create a new driver instead of > trying to fix the old one (I must admit I haven't been through the 46 > patches of this series, but last time we discussed it on IRC, Richard > said it actually was a complete rewrite of the nandsim driver). > > Moreover, if we specify the flash layout manually, maybe we could make > it an mtdsim driver instead of restricting the emulation to NAND > devices. > > What do you think?
I think we don't need a completely new driver. This series just adds functionality to nandsim without much cost, in fact we reuse also some bits from nandsim. If we add a new nandsim alike driver we basically give up the current nandsim and it will die a painful death. This series tries to avoid that. What we can do is splitting nandsim into three files (common, old and new).
P.s: Yes, I'm aware of the fact that then I'll have to maintain the beast. ;-\
-- Thanks, //richard
| |