Charles Manning wrote:
> Sorry Thomas I don't buy that argument. If a system has a NAND device that 
> does have spare OOB available then it does have spare OOB and I can rely on 
> that. If a NAND chip is soldered to a board, and the system exposes the OOB  
> it is there. YAFFS (or whatever) can then be used on this device.

I understand Thomas's point as as he is fighting for generalization. 
Indeed, this OOB stuff introduces a lot of mess.

Charles' point is - if OOB is there, why not to let users use it? Also 
sounds reasonable.

What I think would be nice to do is to get rid of OOB in MTD stuff, but 
add a possibility to access OOB via some NAND-specific interfaces from 
nand_base. Indeed, if one wants to work with a generalized flash device 
- please use MTD interface. If one still wants to access OOB, use 
lower-layer NAND interfaces. That's all about to have more then one 
layer of Generalization. And I believe this is the right way to go.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem B. Bityutskiy,
St.-Petersburg, Russia.