Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1661808
| From | Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] mtd: mchp23k256: add partitioning support |
| Date | 2017-06-09 01:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tQeSB-2cq-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <tI93J-4Nh-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <tNDkt-6hn-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tNFYZ-8b0-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tNGLn-eH-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tNHo5-IM-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:08:08PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote:
> Do we need a flag to indicate SRAM-like properties? I assume there is a
> difference between NO_ERASE on ROM devices where there is just no way of
> erasing the data. For {S,F,M}RAM there is no block erase operation but
I think we already have that:
#define MTD_CAP_ROM 0
#define MTD_CAP_RAM (MTD_WRITEABLE | MTD_BIT_WRITEABLE | MTD_NO_ERASE)
The key signifier for ROM would be !MTD_WRITEABLE.
> you can overwrite data to destroy it (which is actually my use-case with
> this SPI SRAM). I was tempted to set erase_size = 1 at one point which
> in my mind was technically accurate but would probably upset the mtd
> layer just as much as 0.
I'm not sure what erasesize should be here. I suppose 0, but really, I
think the MTD_NO_ERASE flag is the clearer indication that erase is not
needed, and that one should ignore the erasesize.
Brian
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH 3/4] mtd: mchp23k256: add partitioning support Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 01:20 +0200
csiph-web