Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1661812 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-09 01:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-06-09 01:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH 3/4] mtd: mchp23k256: add partitioning support Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 01:30 +0200
| From | Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 01:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/4] mtd: mchp23k256: add partitioning support |
| Message-ID | <tQf2i-2fD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 11:04:06AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > BTW, MTD_NO_ERASE is not the only problem we have with UBI or JFFS2. > Are we guaranteed that an erase operation fills an eraseblock with > ones? Don't we have mem technologies that are filling them with zeros? > Note that mtdram is artificially setting the mem-region to 0xff in its > dummy erase operation, so maybe it's a implicit rule that ->_erase() is > supposed to fill eraseblocks with 0xff. I've wondered about the general assumption. But mtdram isn't really a good example, because it clearly calls itself a "test mtd device". So it makes sense it would emulate common MTDs (i.e., flash memory). Brian
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web