various submissions

[Jonathan Larmour]

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>>
>> I am currently _very_ busy, so I'm very much inclined to accept this
>> offer. If you send patches, I will be happy to test them with my flash
>> chip driver.
> 
> 
> My next mail will have a patch.

Hmm... I've encountered a dilemma. It appears that the generic flash 
driver communicates the total number of blocks and block size to the low 
level driver's unlock block function.

I have no idea why this is the case. Why would the low level driver need 
to have the block size passed in when it already knows it?

I suspect I should fix it by simply removing those arguments of the 
flash_unlock_block functions in all low level drivers. They can use 
flash_info.block_size and flash_info.blocks since the CDL will indicate 
their driver will still be using that scheme anyway.

If there are no objections I'll do that first.

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric       http://www.eCosCentric.com/       <info@eCosCentric.com>
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[  can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln   ]-- Opinions==mine