From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qy0-f21.google.com (mail-qy0-f21.google.com [209.85.221.21]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101BADDDFB for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2008 00:57:26 +1100 (EST) Received: by qyk14 with SMTP id 14so5915709qyk.9 for ; Wed, 03 Dec 2008 05:57:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:57:24 +0100 From: "Leon Woestenberg" To: "Trent Piepho" Subject: Re: [U-Boot] NAND only (no NOR) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <4934F7FC.2030105@aimvalley.nl> <20081202215033.501f3403@lappy.seanm.ca> <200812030648.57618.sr@denx.de> <20081203013818.016619b6@lappy.seanm.ca> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, u-boot@lists.denx.de, Stefan Roese , Norbert van Bolhuis , Sean MacLennan List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello, On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Trent Piepho wrote: > On Wed, 3 Dec 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote: >>> Yes, I would recommend to do it this way if possible. A small NOR for >>> U-Boot and environment and everything else in NAND. This makes things >>> much easier. But I understand that this is sometimes a problem with >>> space (2 FLASH chips) and costs. >> >> Mainly cost. We didn't want to pay for a second chip. > > I think for NAND the latches necessary to de-multiplex the localbus aren't > necessary like they are for NOR? On our board the latches might even take > more space than the flash chip. The local bus can be configured to run non-multiplexed. Regards, -- Leon