From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.fh-wedel.de ([213.39.232.194]) by pentafluge.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30 #5 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1AgSOQ-0007rk-Et for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:31:54 +0000 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:29:20 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel To: Kenneth Johansson Message-ID: <20040113172920.GB25159@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <20040113125031.GA5146@angel.research.nokia.com> <1074001140.17620.3.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <1074007527.9219.11.camel@spawn.uab.ericsson.se> <1074007799.17620.60.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <1074010874.9216.28.camel@spawn.uab.ericsson.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1074010874.9216.28.camel@spawn.uab.ericsson.se> cc: "Jarkko Lavinen \(NMP/Helsinki\)" cc: David Woodhouse cc: MTD List Subject: Re: JFFS2 mount time List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 13 January 2004 17:21:15 +0100, Kenneth Johansson wrote: > > hmm I reread the firt post why is read so slow?? When I thought about > using nand I read that reading a byte took something like 50 ns. That is > like 20MB per second for an 8 bit device. This is in the region where it > did not pay to be smart,the accesses overhead to do read only what's > needed is greater than the time wasted reading uneccessary data. But on nand it is not only possible, but also likely that flash size is greater than ram size. Does your approach still work then? Jörn -- To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt, Kansas City Star, 1918