Hello list,
inside the automatic U-Boot patch tracking system a new ticket [DNX#2006040142000339] was created:
<snip>
Dear Wolfgang,
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.
Yes, I think it is necessary. I just had a look at AT91RM9200 implementation, and it includes all NOR flash stuff even if NOR flash is not used... (cmd_flash.c requires a board/at91rm9200dk/flash.c and so on...) As you told me before, we could use the same flash functions for NOR Flash and DataFlash but it would break all existing code using CONFIG_HAS_DATAFLASH flag. That's why I think the best thing is to use CFG_NO_FLASH flag which will avoid embedding all NOR Flash stuff...
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.
OK, you can drop previous set of patches.
One more thing which is not clear to me. Concerning NAND development, you told me to use testing-NAND git branch. But do I have to submit every patches (board, lcd, usb...) against that branch or only the NAND part? If I submit everything against testing-NAND branch, will it be included in a future u-boot-1.1.5 release, for example?
Best regards. Nicolas.
-----Original Message----- From: wd@denx.de [mailto:wd@denx.de] Sent: mercredi 25 janvier 2006 21:49 To: Lacressonniere Nicolas Cc: U-Boot-Users Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [Patch 5/5] Add DataFlash support for AT91SAM9261EK board
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
-- Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.
</snip>
Your U-Boot support team