[DNX#2006040142000339] [U-Boot-Users] [Patch 5/5] Add DataFlash support f [...]

[DENX Support System]

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 at denx.de [mailto:wd at 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 at 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 at denx.de
> Put your Nose to the Grindstone!
>                  -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.
</snip>

Your U-Boot support team