Hey all, Updated patch included with Robert's suggestions. I agree that either style is a non-factor in performance, so I might as well use the original style because it's cleaner. Thanks! Christian > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org > [mailto:linux-mtd-admin@lists.infradead.org]On Behalf Of Robert Kaiser > Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:10 AM > To: Christian Gan; rkaiser@sysgo.de; linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; > yaffs list > Subject: Re: [PATCH] NAND and mtdconcat > > > Christian, > > > Am Mittwoch, 5. März 2003 20:21 schrieb Christian Gan: > > Hello all, > > > > Attached is a patch for mtdconcat.c that supports NAND functions for the > > oob. I've tested it on my own bench and it seems to work great > on two 64MB > > NANDs concatenated into one MTD. > > > > Robert, since you were the original author of this file, can > you verify it > > for me? > > Looks OK to me. I can't test it right now as I don't have any suitable HW > available, but I'll take your word that it works ;-) > > One question though, you made changes like this: > > > @@ -410,11 +641,12 @@ > static int concat_suspend(struct mtd_info *mtd) > { > struct mtd_concat *concat = CONCAT(mtd); > + struct mtd_info *subdev = NULL; > int i, rc = 0; > > for(i = 0; i < concat->num_subdev; i++) > { > - struct mtd_info *subdev = concat->subdev[i]; > + subdev = concat->subdev[i]; > if((rc = subdev->suspend(subdev)) < 0) > return rc; > } > @@ -424,11 +656,12 @@ > > all over the place. Why? This might generate slightly more code > and be slower > (not that it would be noticeable though). > > Other than that, I have no objections. > > Rob > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Robert Kaiser email: rkaiser@sysgo.de > SYSGO AG > Am Pfaffenstein 14 phone: (49) 6136 9948-762 > D-55270 Klein-Winternheim / Germany fax: (49) 6136 9948-10 > > ______________________________________________________ > Linux MTD discussion mailing list > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/ >