This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: NAND support
Simon Kallweit wrote:
Rutger Hofman wrote:
What made you select UFFS? It licence, or its properties? Care to
share your reasons to not use YAFFS?
A bit of both I guess. As I'm developing a platform which will be used
for proprietary products, so I have to make sure we have the freedom to
keep the application closed. We could always get a license for YAFFS,
but I'd rather use something without the need for licensing. Second, it
seems YAFFS is quite a bit more heavyweight than UFFS. As we're rather
tight on ROM/RAM, I'm looking for a really lightweight FS, and UFFS
seems to fit the bill rather nicely.
When I do a YAFFS/direct library build with -Os on my x86:
-rw-r--r-- 1 rutger rutger 81768 2009-05-05 13:42 libyaffs.a
After stripping:
-rw-r--r-- 1 rutger rutger 56016 2009-05-05 13:40 libyaffs.a
Comparable output from 'size libyaffs.a'.
I've seen worse...
The nice thing about eCos is it's configurability. More options cannot
really hurt IMHO as long as share code and subsystems (NAND) wherever
possible.
I agree completely!
Rutger
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss