In message KAEELLICOFHDAEPIACDEAEPJCFAA.nicolas.lacressonniere@rfo.atmel.com you wrote:
DataFlash patch (5/5) adds DataFlash support for ATMEL AT91SAM9261EK board.
It also adds the following dataflash commands (in cmd_dataflash.c): U_BOOT_CMD( dflc, 5, 1, do_dataflash_command, "dflc - DATAFLASH utility command\n", "dflc init - Init connected dataflash cards\n" "dflc info - scan for connected dataflash devices\n" "dflc protect - protect or unprotect sectors\n" );
I reject this patch. Dataflash support is supposed to be transparent to the user. IT should be supported by the existing flash commands. Please change the code to use the existing "protect" command like it was done before for dataflash, too.
Also, I don't see any need for a "dflc init" command - such initialization should be done when needed and without needing manual user interaction. And "dflc info" is supposed to be par tof the "flinfo" output on your hardware.
CHANGELOG Patch by Nicolas Lacressonniere 24 January 2006
- Add DataFlash support for ATMEL AT91SAM9261EK board (arm926ejs)
- Add DataFlash utility commands
- Add addr2ram verification in do_mem_cp function.
I also reject the patch because I think that such "verification" is a bad thing.
"UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things." - Doug Gwyn
Your "verification" prevents a lot of "clever things", like copying data to a framebuffer or some dual ported RAM or on-chip memory or...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk