public inbox for u-boot@lists.denx.de
 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox