Grant Likely wrote: > On Feb 12, 2008 11:52 AM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It'd be nice if we could pass in a flag to tell it not to try to find >> additional consecutive chips in the mapping... It's a shame to have >> probable chips, and still have to know how big they are anyway. > > That is the job of the boot loader or wrapper.
Hmm? All I meant was that it'd be nice if there were an option in the Linux mtd code to disable the "look for another chip and cause a machine check if it isn't there" functionality. It was an aside from the dts-variant issue. > The whole concept of > the device tree is that by the time it gets to the kernel it is an > accurate representation of the hardware; not a list of things which > might or might not be present. But we don't generally include things which can be probed in a standard manner... which includes flash size. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev