<p>Okay, fair enough. I wasn't paying very close attention when I replied. It still seems awkward to me, but not enough to object (ie. It's not dangerous).</p>
<p>g.</p>
<p><blockquote type="cite">On Jun 16, 2009 7:20 AM, "Wolfram Sang" <<a href="mailto:w.sang@pengutronix.de">w.sang@pengutronix.de</a>> wrote:<br><br><p><font color="#500050">> > Grant wondered if we need a bankwidth. IMHO it is needed for now, but I don't
> > know if this i...</font></p>Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. I am not talking about Albrecht's case.<br>
What I replied to your concern is that bankwidth is used(!) in the underlying<br>
map-ram-driver in mapram_erase() at the moment. Whether this is really needed<br>
could be discussed perhaps, but is beyond the scope of this patch series IMHO.<br>
I'd think this can be addressed in a later series, if needed, although this<br>
could mean that the binding will change (bank-width becoming optional).<br>
<p><font color="#500050">
Regards,
Wolfram
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang ...</font></p><br>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)<br>
<br>
iEYEARECAAYFAko3nAUACgkQD27XaX1/VRtTkACfW0aUMJHrU3m4DCel0pm5fA6J<br>
WaQAnjGo5fn6JvMHt3Ke/xFTGB1uYT6p<br>
=V9t5<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br></blockquote></p>