Dear Nicalas,
in message KAEELLICOFHDAEPIACDEEEAFCGAA.nicolas.lacressonniere@rfo.atmel.com you wrote:
We will use the same commands for flash and dataflash parts. I found an existing flag CFG_NO_FLASH that can be used to prevent from compiling some flash code so that we can use same commands without compiling specific flash part. Does that way seem OK for you?
Do you really think this is needed? I think that the existing dataflash implementation (for the AT91RM9200) does not require any NOR flash either, and it does not need to do this.
I also have a question concerning new patches I have to submit. These CFG_NO_FLASH modifications have some impact on one of the patch ([Patch 1/5] Add support for AT91SAM9261EK board) I submitted yesterday and which was not rejected... Do I have to submit 2 new patches (previous one will be cancelled) or do I have to make a diff on impacted files and submit only the new patch (previous one will be keeped)?
If things are interdependent on such a level it's probably best to fix this first and then submit everything again, telling me to drop the previous set of patches.
But then, your patches should not be dependent on each other in such a way in the first place.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk