From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24062 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2002 13:58:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24055 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2002 13:58:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO iv.ro) (194.105.28.94) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2002 13:58:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 3157 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2002 15:56:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cow) (192.168.1.4) by 192.168.1.1 with SMTP; 11 Jul 2002 15:56:32 -0000 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 06:58:00 -0000 From: Jani Monoses To: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20020711165629.6cd62947.jani@iv.ro> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [ECOS] flash driver interface questions X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 I see that in low level flash drivers flash_erase_block has one parameter. Exceptions are the Intel StrataFlash and the synth target flash which have 2 parameters. The upper layer io/flash/../flash.c calls this with 2 arguments. The same is true for flash_program_buf: strata and synth have 5 arguments while the rest of the drivers have 3.The upper layer calls this low level fn with 5 arguments. Is one interface preferable over the other?Which is newest? Thanks Jani -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss