Dear Dave,
in message 58A20A281BAF1047B4EAE68DE5C0BDC2C821F6@zch01exm21.fsl.freescale.net you wrote:
[dave] sorry for that, I'm using the webmail to access my mailbox. the webmail is stupid.
I see :-(
Maybe. But still both the existing common/cmd_sata.c and your new cmd_sata2.c implement the very same functions (like do_sata()) with more or less the same sub-commands etc.
[dave] I think the same part is focusing on command line.
Not only. I think implementations of functions like sata_read() or sata_write() should be generic enough and not need to be duplicated.
[dave] if I choose current command/cmd_sata.c, and don't move the drivers part of cmd_sata.c to drivers/block. I think it will add extra-space for my image. so, the best choice is move the drivers part of cmd_sata.c to drivers/block. what do you think about it?
Probably you are right.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk