From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tolunay Orkun Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:37:25 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] cfi_flash.c patches In-Reply-To: <20050824231225.C1705352674@atlas.denx.de> References: <20050824231225.C1705352674@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <430DF3C5.8060905@orkun.us> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>I think it is wrong for U-Boot to make any abstraction on any portion of >>flash that it does not know anything about it's use. The tools available >>today within U-Boot provides all the necessary and sufficient facilities >>to deal with any usage model. > > > Right. The discussion is just what the default configuration shall > look like, and I get tired of pointing this out again and again. You are thinking that the default configuration you have chosen for a common driver is "mainstream" and more common than not and I an not so sure about it. My experience is pointing to the opposite. I think "common" default configuration should be covering as many cases as possible rather than shrink the potential application of a common driver. Deviation from your chosen "default" will mean more board designers will need to duplicate cfi_flash.c and have maintain fixes/changes introduced to cfi_flash.c separately. This is back to the time where there were many flash.c in board directories where each had 90% common code. To solve this, I guess we will need more hooks (increase configurability) into this common driver so we can override the behavior of cfi_flash.c from board directories and prevent code duplication. I hope you would not object to this as long as the code size for other boards would not be increased. Best regards, Tolunay