This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: NAND review
- From: Simon Kallweit <simon dot kallweit at intefo dot ch>
- To: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at jifvik dot org>
- Cc: "ecos-devel at ecos dot sourceware dot org" <ecos-devel at ecos dot sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:11:44 +0200
- Subject: Re: NAND review
- References: <4A126D59.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4A134A31.email@example.com>
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
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