On Fri, 29 August 2008 08:48:07 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 2008-08-27 at 17:25 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> > 
> > Could be useful, I don't mind you sending a patch.  However, does this
> > means that MEMGETINFO64 or some other ioctl should not be done?  Should
> > flash_erase open, read and close 8 seperate files instead of doing a
> > single ioctl?  And should our support for large devices wait for the
> > sysfs support that has been talked about and not done for about two
> > years already?
> 
> Up to dwmw2, but I do not mind if the answer to all the above questions
> is "yes" :-)

Well, I personally think a "yes" to the last question would be utter
madness.  Whoever answers that should better come up with an alternative
patch for sysfs support pronto.

Large flashes are not a one-off cases where a single manufacturer had a
rather bizarre design.  Their numbers will continually increase.  And
not supporting an ever-increasing class of hardware is simply not an
option.

Jörn

-- 
 on a false concept. This concept is that
people actually want to look at source code.
-- Rob Enderle
--
unsubscribe notice
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/