[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Proposed change to mtd read functions (Was Re: [PATCH v2 07/16] mtd/docg3: add OOB layout to mtdinfo)
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 10:08 -0800, Mike Dunn wrote:
> This would be better than the cumulative error count over the entire block,
> because the highest count on any one page is more significant, I think.

Yeah, although in the previous proposal I also assumed something like
that, not "cumulative".

Just a side note - take my suggestions with a grain of salt - I do not
actively work on MTD any longer so may mislead you :-)

> > So the SW which does not care, will not
> > require any changes.
> >
> > I am not sure if you'll need to mtd interfaces from mtd->func(...) to
> > mtd_func(mtd, ...) for this or not, though.
> I don't (yet) see why I would need to.
> Just adding the argument to mtd->read(), mtd->read_oob(), would be a simple
> change, but large in scope, affecting all users of the mtd interface. Any
> advice on how to proceed?

Add the argument without implementing its support, amend all users and
make them compile.

> Should it be one big patchset, with individual
> patches for changes to mtd, nand, one_nand, mtdchar, each driver, ... ?
> If it
> is not all merged at once, the build will be broken for the unpatched
> components. Or is that acceptable, and the patches can be submitted piecemeal,
> starting with, say, mtd, nand, nandsim, mtdram, mtdchar? Or should we
> temporarily create a branch from l2-mtd until we're satisfiled that this is all
> stable?

We can create a branch regardless, if you find this useful.

I guess one big patch should be OK. If it causes issues we can later
think how to split it.

Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-14 18:41    [W:0.065 / U:8.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site