All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wolfgang Wegner <wolfgang@leila.ping.de>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] non-blocking flash functions - is this possible/acceptable?
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:51:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091027125146.GA3216@leila.ping.de> (raw)

Hi,

we have an update protocol that normally relies on data being
received while the previous block is written to flash.

We hacked our U-Boot to provide non-blocking variants for flash
access for the relevant functions, which are:

flash_status_check_nb()
flash_full_status_check_nb()
flash_erase_nb() (single-sector only)
flash_write_cfibuffer_nb()
write_buff_nb()

Apart from flash_status_check_nb() and flash_erase_nb() (the latter
being reduced to handle only one sector at a time), these are mainly
the same functions as the originals, but use
flash_[full_]status_check_nb()
instead, so there is much duplicate code.

Is such a use case generally acceptable in U-Boot, and if so, does
anybody have an idea how to implement those without all this duplicate
code?
Of course I can also implement this stuff in our board code, but it
seems a bit unlogical to break the flash handling apart and the bloat
would remain, just in a different place.

[I am bringing this topic up because I am trying to prepare patches for
sending to the list, and this one seems to me as a real show-stopper
right now.]

Regards,
Wolfgang

             reply	other threads:[~2009-10-27 12:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-27 12:51 Wolfgang Wegner [this message]
2009-10-27 13:21 ` [U-Boot] non-blocking flash functions - is this possible/acceptable? Jerry Van Baren
2009-10-27 14:03   ` Jerry Van Baren
2009-10-27 15:22     ` Wolfgang Wegner
2009-10-27 15:57       ` Jerry Van Baren
2009-10-27 15:24   ` Wolfgang Wegner
2009-10-27 18:58 ` Wolfgang Denk
2009-10-30 14:48   ` [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] Implementation of non-blocking flash write/erase/status check functions Wolfgang Wegner
2009-10-30 15:02     ` Wolfgang Wegner
2009-10-30 18:22     ` Wolfgang Denk
2009-11-02 16:26       ` [U-Boot] [PATCH] " Wolfgang Wegner
2009-11-02 16:33       ` [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] Implementation of " Wolfgang Wegner
2009-12-09 16:00       ` [U-Boot] [PATCH RFC v2] " Wolfgang Wegner
2010-01-22 10:03         ` Wolfgang Wegner
2010-01-22 12:03           ` Wolfgang Denk
2010-01-25  8:35             ` Stefan Roese

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20091027125146.GA3216@leila.ping.de \
    --to=wolfgang@leila.ping.de \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.