MTD concat layer

[Jonas Holmberg]

On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 16:35, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
> 
> On 20 Feb 2002, Jonas Holmberg wrote:
> 
> > I'm ready to do some serious testing now.
> 
> Good!
> 
> > Should I use these patches or
> > do you have newer versions?
> 
> The erase function has a bug for which I'm currently developing
> a fix. I hope to get it done by tomorrow. The bug does not show
> up if you use erase/eraseall, but will probably manifest itself
> when using JFFS/JFFS2 on a concatenated device.

Yep, I get the following when erasing across chip boundry:

JFFS: jffs_write_node: Failed to write, requested 8260, wrote 1
Last[3] is c6a6, datum is 3931
Didn't write all bytes in flash_safe_writev(). Returned -5
JFFS: jffs_write_node: Failed to write, requested 8260, wrote 1
Last[3] is c6a6, datum is 3931
Didn't write all bytes in flash_safe_writev(). Returned -5
JFFS: jffs_write_node: Failed to write, requested 8260, wrote 1
Last[3] is c6a6, datum is 3931
Didn't write all bytes in flash_safe_writev(). Returned -5
JFFS: jffs_write_node: Failed to write, requested 8260, wrote 1
Last[3] is c6a6, datum is 3931

Other than that it seems fine. I have tried mixing CFI and JEDEC chips
as well. I'm awaiting your erase-fix.

It seems like JFFS uses writev. Are you planning to implement the
v-functions?

> 
> > When can we expect to see this in CVS?
> 
> Good question :-). Apparently David is not yet completely convinced
> that it should be implemented the way I did. If you do some serious
> testing, your test results might help to persuade him (or prove to him
> that his scepticism was right). In any case, please share your
> results.

Is it much work implementing it his way instead? I have no opinion of
which is better. Your concat layer looks very clean, but David use to be
right :-)

/Jonas