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