hardcoded maximum number of CFI chips - continued
Jörn Engel
joern at wohnheim.fh-wedel.de
Tue Jul 22 06:21:48 EDT 2003
On Mon, 21 July 2003 23:34:05 +0200, andrzej.mialkowski at inetia.pl wrote:
>
> Yes, linked list is nice solution; I would also prefer it while writing a new
> module.
> Problem is that module exist and works pretty well. My priorities are time to
> solution and risk of bug avoidance. You must agree that this is big difference
> between changing number 8 to 10 and rewriting even only module initialization
> to linked lists.
> Compromise solution may be leave runtime structures as they are, and change
> chips table to be 'reallocated' for instance in 4-16 chip increments. This
> solution reduces to reasonable amount of copying and memory allocations (still
> not critical during initialization), supports 'unlimited' number of chips and
> may be implemented and tested in period of few hours. I can do this tomorrow.
In that case, why don't you just crank up the number from 8 to 16? It
is the simpler solution to your problem at hand.
Jörn
--
Correctness comes second.
Features come third.
Performance comes last.
Maintainability is needed for all of them.
More information about the linux-mtd
mailing list