On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 14:49 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com> wrote:
> > On 04/30/2012 02:59 PM, Brian Norris wrote:
> >> I see. This is the kind of issue I was alluding to back in v2:
> >>
> >> "For instance, is there any sort of hardware that expects the whole
> >> page + OOB to be read via chip->read_buf() for all reads..."
> >>
> >> This situation comes up if NAND_NO_AUTOINCR is not set. But really, it
> >> looks like we *always* have NAND_NO_AUTOINCR enabled, and so we
> >> *always* send a new READ cmd. I know that it's possible for some board
> >> driver to override this, but I don't see that anywhere...
> >
> > If it's never used, maybe just remove autoincrement support altogether
> > and simplify the code?
> 
> Fine with me. I'd like some word from a Artem or David though.

My opinion is that we have too much cruft and killing unused feature is
fine.

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy