[U-Boot-Users] Re: A Shared flash.c
Stephen Williams wrote:
The JSE board (PPC405GPr) I'm working on has an 8-bit flash that is attached to the local bus, and I find that the flash.c from board/walnut405 is almost identical. (I just needed to add a case for a different chip vendor.) Would it make sense to move more of its contents to common/flash.c? For example, the flash_printinfo function seems like a candidate.
Would patches to that effect be accepted?
Well gee, it seems like flash_print_info in particular should go into the cmd_flash.c file, *inside* the (CONFIG_COMMANDS & CFG_CMD_FLASH) section. The flinfo command is the only place it is used. There are a few other functions like that, but print_flash_info is the most glaring example.
In message 26365-62604@sneakemail.com you wrote:
Well gee, it seems like flash_print_info in particular should go into the cmd_flash.c file, *inside* the (CONFIG_COMMANDS & CFG_CMD_FLASH) section. The flinfo command is the only place it is used. There are a few other functions like that, but print_flash_info is the most glaring example.
Please have a look over the rim. There are other flash drivers which are just different.
Wolfgang Denk
Wolfgang Denk wd-at-denx.de |u-boot-users| wrote:
In message 26365-62604@sneakemail.com you wrote:
Well gee, it seems like flash_print_info in particular should go into the cmd_flash.c file, *inside* the (CONFIG_COMMANDS & CFG_CMD_FLASH) section. The flinfo command is the only place it is used. There are a few other functions like that, but print_flash_info is the most glaring example.
Please have a look over the rim. There are other flash drivers which are just different.
OK, that's true about the flash.c file as a whole, but the print_flash_info functions are all board independent, as far as I can see. Just different levels of completeness. There are other similar functions that only peruse the flash_info structures and so are completely board independent, and I was merely thinking in terms of unifying some common code.
Again, I see your point WRT flash.c as a whole, but wouldn't it be useful to for example make flash_print_info common?
Granted that's a lot of board files implementing the same print_flash_info, so maybe surround a common version with CFG_FLASH_COMMON_PRINT and use that for the few that are staring me in the face.
In message 6922-64489@sneakemail.com you wrote:
OK, that's true about the flash.c file as a whole, but the print_flash_info functions are all board independent, as far as I can see. Just different levels of completeness. There
This has nothing to do with completeness, but with optimization of memory footprint. The reason why most boards use their own special version of flash.c is so that it gives minimum memory footprint by just supporting the poosible variants of this specific board. It is just a waste of memory when you for example include support for Intel chips when you know for sure that the board will always see only AMD chips.
are other similar functions that only peruse the flash_info structures and so are completely board independent, and I was merely thinking in terms of unifying some common code.
This has been suggested before, and the rules have been defined, too:
Such a modification is welcome, if and only if:
- it works on ALL existing boards at least as good as the current code - it does NOT increase the memory footprint for any board
Again, I see your point WRT flash.c as a whole, but wouldn't it be useful to for example make flash_print_info common?
I think it would break U-Boot for a couple of boards that live in small memory like a 128 kB EPROM.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (2)
-
Stephen Williams -
Wolfgang Denk