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 technical review

Rutger Hofman wrote:

I agree. Many of the printfs are leftovers from debugging stages. They should go (and will go anyway at a next code cleanup), and an error should be reported upwards where that isn't done yet; or possibly asserts when they flag a programming error in this layer -- preferences? I will do this somewhere in the coming weeks.

I think that's the way to do it - asserts for programming errors (things which should never ever happen), and errors for things which could maybe happen in the field, e.g. due to hardware errors.

If you prefer you could change the existing printfs into some sorts of macros which you'd only want to see if you're debugging NAND operation, and completely left out otherwise. Like CYG_NAND_CHATTER. Or perhaps some of them should be turned into CYG_NAND_CHATTER, it depends.

When the dependency on a memory allocator is also gone (see other response), there is no practical obstacle left to switch from explicit initialisation to init-time constructor.

If this makes a difference in acceptance, I will convert from malloc and explicit initialisation somewhere within one month.

If the decision is made to adopt your one, that's a change I think would be beneficial yes, and can be done then.

--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

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