[PATCH v2 00/46] Nandsim facelift (part I of II)
Richard Weinberger
richard.weinberger at gmail.com
Mon Nov 14 08:24:18 PST 2016
Boris,
sorry for the late answer. I was not on CC, therefore this mail was
unnoticed by me. :-(
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Daniel, Richard,
>
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:43:29 +0200
> Daniel Walter <dwalter at sigma-star.at> wrote:
>
>> Changes since V1:
>> Incooperate feedback for nand_cleanup()
>> Improve commit messages
[..-]
> I really like the new approach for 2 reasons:
> 1/ it allows creating several NAND devs, and you can do that after the
> module has been loaded.
> 2/ it fixes the partial NAND detection support by allowing one to
> describe its NAND in term of page size, eraseblock size, oob
> size, ...
>
> But I'm wondering if we should not create a new driver instead of
> trying to fix the old one (I must admit I haven't been through the 46
> patches of this series, but last time we discussed it on IRC, Richard
> said it actually was a complete rewrite of the nandsim driver).
>
> Moreover, if we specify the flash layout manually, maybe we could make
> it an mtdsim driver instead of restricting the emulation to NAND
> devices.
>
> What do you think?
I think we don't need a completely new driver. This series just adds
functionality to nandsim without much cost, in fact we reuse also some
bits from nandsim.
If we add a new nandsim alike driver we basically give up the current nandsim
and it will die a painful death. This series tries to avoid that.
What we can do is splitting nandsim into three files (common, old and new).
P.s: Yes, I'm aware of the fact that then I'll have to maintain the beast. ;-\
--
Thanks,
//richard
More information about the linux-mtd
mailing list