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/
>