lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [patch/rfc 2.6.29 1/2] MTD: driver model updates
    From
    Date
    On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 00:42 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
    >
    > @@ -343,6 +343,11 @@ static struct mtd_part *add_one_partitio
    > slave->mtd.name = part->name;
    > slave->mtd.owner = master->owner;
    >
    > + /* NOTE: we don't arrange MTDs as a tree; it'd be error-prone
    > + * to have the same data be in two different partitions.
    > + */
    > + slave->mtd.dev.parent = master->dev.parent;

    Can you elaborate on that? I think we _do_ want to arrange partitions as
    sub-devices of the master, don't we? And I'd rather not change the way
    they appear at a later date; I'd prefer them to be that way from the
    beginning.

    > slave->mtd.read = part_read;
    > slave->mtd.write = part_write;
    >
    > @@ -493,7 +498,9 @@ out_register:
    > * This function, given a master MTD object and a partition table, creates
    > * and registers slave MTD objects which are bound to the master according to
    > * the partition definitions.
    > - * (Q: should we register the master MTD object as well?)
    > + *
    > + * We don't register the master, or expect the caller to have done so,
    > + * for reasons of data integrity.
    > */

    Again, can you elaborate?

    A lot of devices do just that. Where you have a partition table of some
    kind that's actually stored on the flash, that might be the only way to
    access it.

    I really don't like the way our partitioning works at the moment.

    --
    dwmw2



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-03 12:07    [W:0.024 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site