From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Frysinger Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:04:10 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [ANNOUNCE] DATAFLASH DRIVER In-Reply-To: <20090108092124.23db7ae2@hskinnemoen-d830> References: <20090107205616.GH20559@game.jcrosoft.org> <1231366549.32308.523.camel@elrond.atmel.com> <20090108092124.23db7ae2@hskinnemoen-d830> Message-ID: <200901080604.11989.vapier@gentoo.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Thursday 08 January 2009 03:21:24 Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > Ulf Samuelsson wrote: > > 6) Support partitions for > > bootstrap > > environemnt > > u-boot > > kernel > > filesystem > > in the boot dataflash. > > additional dataflash should have other partitions. > > We should add a partitioning layer on top of the current interface. > > And even better solution would be to introduce a common flash interface > for NOR, NAND, SPI, etc. flash and add a partitioning layer on top of > that. rather than reinvent the wheel, just support redboot partitioning scheme. but yeah, i dont think it makes much sense to add partitioning support to each flash layer and turn around and unify it all. take the common layer approach first. > > I have my own patches for the memory commands > > to enable most of this but adding that to the > > cmd_mem driver was not accepted. > > Yes, as you probably know, I for one think memory mapping of serial > devices is a bad idea. agreed here ... especially on systems that cant ... > Also, caching sounds like something which comes dangerously close to > crossing the line between "boot loader" and "operating system". I don't > think it fits well into the current u-boot architecture. agreed here -mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090108/dd7fbbe4/attachment.pgp