RE: [U-Boot-Users] PATCH : Fixes and enhancements for NAND flash.
Wolfgang,
I do like the spinning wheel. Is there any standard way to add a progress indicator into this or any code with significant delay? Any of the users of the code I've talked with like such a feature. It seems that same bit of code has been replicated in a few places. Surly having a library call and some ifdef's would be acceptable.
As far a code formatting, I'll see if I can't fix it up. I find myself using several editors depending on the context of what I'm doing. I've not mastered any of them... When I do the diff -purN for the patch, I generally don't notice differences except in the areas I have changed something. What code reformatter/filter do you use? Some of the more recent u-boot releases have had a lot of style changes to the point I would suspect you ran something over the code.
Regards,
Richard W.
in message FD2AC9A020DDD51194710008C7089B200BEE2218@dlee17.itg.ti.com you wrote:
The following path fixes a few bugs in cmd_nand.c :
- Fixed null dereference which could result in incorrect ECC values.
- Added support for devices with no Ready/Busy signal connected.
- Added OMAP1510 read/write protect handling.
- Fixed nand.h's ECCPOS. A conflict existed with POS5 and badblock for
non-JFFS2.
- Switched default ECC to be JFFS2.
Added so far.
Will push to CVS soon.
- Added spinning wheel.
Skipped / rejected.
May I please ask you to adhere to the guidlines for coding style?
Please do not add trailing white space, especially not to existing code. Please stick with 8 char indentation.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Dear Richard,
in message FD2AC9A020DDD51194710008C7089B200BEE2224@dlee17.itg.ti.com you wrote:
I do like the spinning wheel. Is there any standard way to add a progress indicator into this or any code with significant delay? Any of the users of
Use common sense. The only thing it does is making a part of the code which takes more time than you like eveln slower: I'm not talking about the few CPU cycles for the printf (putc() would have been much simpler), but especially about trashing the cache for "pretty" things that don't add value, and the time it takes to output this stuff on a slow serial line.
the code I've talked with like such a feature. It seems that same bit of code has been replicated in a few places. Surly having a library call and some ifdef's would be acceptable.
No, not at this place. It's a different story when - for example - waiting for a flash sector be return to ready state when erasing it. Here you have to wait anyway, so feel free to implement this busy wait as you like it.
As far a code formatting, I'll see if I can't fix it up. I find myself using several editors depending on the context of what I'm doing. I've not mastered any of them... When I do the diff -purN for the patch, I generally don't notice differences except in the areas I have changed something. What code reformatter/filter do you use? Some of the more recent u-boot releases have had a lot of style changes to the point I would suspect you ran something over the code.
vi and indent (indent -kr -i8 -bad -bap -nbc -br -c33 -cd33 -ncdb -ce -ci8 -cli0 -cp33 -d0 -di1 -nfc1 -nfca -i4 -ip0 -l75 -lp -pcs -npsl -nsc -nsob -nss -ts4, to be precise).
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (2)
-
Wolfgang Denk -
Woodruff, Richard