This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the eCos project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: NAND review

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
Simon Kallweit wrote:
Well these are my first thoughts on the prereleased code. I hope more people take a look at it and we can have a discussion and soon decide which NAND framework we're going to use.

Just to clarify something here, I don't think it's a case of this one or that one. Provided someone is prepared to put in the effort, it is possible to have a mix of both, with the best aspects of both. It seems unlikely to me that one of them will be superior to the other in every way.

True, but I think we're still heading for one implementation which is going to be refined with code/ideas of the other.

Like you, I'm also concerned about some aspects of Ross's use of partitioning (and have emailed some details privately to him about that). But I'm also concerned about possibly having too much layering in Rutger's version for small simple implementations. I guess we'll wait for Ross to reply with more detail on his rationale for the differences to Rutger's.

Yes, I generally like the overall lean design of Ross's solution a bit more. Currently my only concern is that there is quite a bit of code sitting in the platform HALs, and a lot of this will going to be duplicated for different ports. But I also see Ross's point about total flexibility here, and that it's going to be difficult to have a more generic solution which is going to work for all the cases without getting messy.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]