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.
(text/plain)