Messages in this thread |  | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 41/44 take 2] [UBI] gluebi unit header | Date | Sun, 18 Feb 2007 23:37:51 +0100 |
| |
On Sunday 18 February 2007 04:02:17 Josh Boyer wrote: > On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 03:15:23AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Sunday 18 February 2007 03:04, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > No, the MTD interface isn't flawed. gluebi is present to make things > > > like JFFS2 work on top of UBI volumes with very little adaptations. If > > > you go changing _every_ MTD user to now use either an MTD device or a > > > native UBI device, then the code for those users just gets bloated. > > > > Right, that was my point. If the MTD API in the kernel is not flawed, why > > do we need the 'native' UBI interface? Just merge gluebi into UBI and > > get rid of the extra abstraction. > > That suggestion came up several times. gluebi represents a compromise > between the two groups. IIRC, the issue was that representing UBI volumes > as MTD devices only makes sense in the dynamic volume case. Static UBI > volumes require special write/update handling and so there was a need for > a native interface anyway.
Which brings be back to my original point ;-)
I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I'd still like to understand what is so special with 'static UBI volumes' that they can't be used with a slightly extended MTD interface.
Arnd <>< - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |