Bad assumption about ID field definition for Samsung NAND?
norris at broadcom.com
Fri Aug 20 13:42:40 EDT 2010
On 08/20/2010 06:43 AM, Tilman Sauerbeck wrote:
> Okay, how do we proceed? Should I send a proper patch with the diff
> above? Or does anyone want to try and come up with a better fix...?
I vote for Tilman's patch. There's nothing unnecessarily ugly about it;
it simply checks cell-type in order to decide whether we use Samsung's
new "standard" for MLC or fall-back to the real standard. If anything,
the existing code (checking ID length) is ugly. However, both checks
More information about the linux-mtd