Execute in place.

[Jörn Engel]

On Wed, 4 June 2003 09:34:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
> I've done some work on kernel XIP. The basic principle of operation is
> that we copy any code which may need to run while the flash chips are in
> anything but 'read' mode into RAM, and we disable interrupts while the
> chips are busy. During erases, we poll not only for erase completion but
> also for pending IRQs. If an IRQ is pending, we suspend the erase
> operation, re-enable IRQs and call cond_resched().

Maybe a stupid one, but anyway...

For my flash chips, an erase operation is in the ballpark of a second.
That is very long for interrupts, so I would assume, we never complete
an erase without being interrupted.  Does this mean that a formerly
suspended and resumed erase operation completes quicker than a fresh
one?  Or do we need really fast flash chips?

Jörn

-- 
Ninety percent of everything is crap.
-- Sturgeon's Law