Okay, fair enough. I wasn't paying very close attention when I replied. It still seems awkward to me, but not enough to object (ie. It's not dangerous).
g. On Jun 16, 2009 7:20 AM, "Wolfram Sang" <w.s...@pengutronix.de> wrote: > > Grant wondered if we need a bankwidth. IMHO it is needed for now, but I don't > > know if this i... Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. I am not talking about Albrecht's case. What I replied to your concern is that bankwidth is used(!) in the underlying map-ram-driver in mapram_erase() at the moment. Whether this is really needed could be discussed perhaps, but is beyond the scope of this patch series IMHO. I'd think this can be addressed in a later series, if needed, although this could mean that the binding will change (bank-width becoming optional). Regards, Wolfram -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang ... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAko3nAUACgkQD27XaX1/VRtTkACfW0aUMJHrU3m4DCel0pm5fA6J WaQAnjGo5fn6JvMHt3Ke/xFTGB1uYT6p =V9t5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
