RE: [PATCH 1/2] mtdpart: memory accessor interface for MTD layer

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 03:31 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> Point is to ensure that enough of the right context
> information is available to initialize correctly.
> So the right data is extracted and passed on.

Forgive me if I'm being dim (and in particular, please forgive me if I'm
going over something that was already discussed; I know it's been a
while). But I don't see why it needs to be passed through the core MTD
code.

To take the simple case of an unpartitioned MTD device -- why can't the
map driver (or whatever) just call the maccessor setup function for
itself, directly, right after calling add_mtd_device() with its
newly-probed MTD device?

And for partitions, why can't it do the same, on the appropriate
partition.

OK, the answer to the latter question is that you don't actually *have*
the pointers to each partition you register. But that's easily fixed.

If we make add_mtd_partitions() take an extra 'struct mtd_info **'
argument and put pointers to the slave mtd 'devices' into that, it means
that your board driver *can* reliably get the mtd pointer for the fourth
partition, or whatever it needs. And can then just do the memory
accessor setup for itself.

Isn't that enough?

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx                              Intel Corporation


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/