OF compatible MTD platform RAM driver ?
Laurent Pinchart
laurentp at cse-semaphore.com
Tue Mar 25 13:23:26 EDT 2008
On Tuesday 25 March 2008 18:02, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>
> > > Heh, there was a whole company against mentioning "mtd" when we started
> > > working on this (of course, the first idea was to call the flash device
> > > type "mtd"). I don't think "mtd" looks good here -- I'd suggest
> > > "flash-ram" (if this is just a linearly mapped NVRAM).
>
> > I'm fine with "flash-ram" (even thought it looks a bit weird). I'll
> > prepare a patch.
>
> Yeah. I forgeot that "flash" means EEPROM. Actually, the main facts about
> the NVRAM that I'd want to be stated in the "compatible" property is that
> it's non-volatile and directly/lineraly mapped... Just "nvram" doesn't seem
> enopugh, maybe "linear-nvram" is.
Direct mapping is a hard requirement for the nvram if we want to use it with
the MTD subsystem. Regarding non-volatility nothing prevents a user from
using a volatile RAM as an MTD device, but there's little point in doing so.
Would it be acceptable for the "linear-nvram" specification not to include
volatile RAM ? ROM chips would be excluded too. Is that an issue ?
> And we can specify "device_type" of "nvram" indeed (and #size).
I suppose you meant #bytes.
What about sub-partitions support ? Nothing prevents RAM-based MTD devices
from being partioned. Would it be acceptable to reference the CFI/JEDEC flash
section in Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt in the description of
the nvram node ?
Best regards,
--
Laurent Pinchart
CSE Semaphore Belgium
Chaussée de Bruxelles, 732A
B-1410 Waterloo
Belgium
T +32 (2) 387 42 59
F +32 (2) 387 42 75
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/attachments/20080325/8e07d91b/attachment.bin
More information about the linux-mtd
mailing list