[U-Boot-Users] Atmel DataFlash hooks.

Grant Likely grant.likely at secretlab.ca
Fri Jan 26 23:40:09 CET 2007

On 1/26/07, Ulf Samuelsson <ulfs at atmel.com> wrote:
> >> Now with the new approach to introducing patches,
> >> I think the SAM9 patches should be sent in soon
> >> and you will have a significant number of boards
> >> that will break if you screw up.
> >
> > Just because I write the patches doesn't mean they get accepted.  They
> > need to be acked by someone who has tested them first.  I'm offering
> > to take on the workload of writing the patches, but I cannot take on
> > the testing.  A number of the changes that I'm making right now (not
> > just DataFlash) affect every single board, but I cannot test them all.
> > Best I can do is make sure it works on the handful of boards I do
> > have, post the patches for others to test, and only request inclusion
> > in mainline when nobody reports problems with them.
> >
> I beleive a more proper approach is that
> If you cannot test the patches yourself, then you need to wait
> until someone confirms that the patch is actually working.
> If noone tests the patch, that is an indication that noone is interested.

Fair enough.  I'm still going to push for change though.  :)

> >>> For the stuff that *is* in mainline, I will of course make sure that
> >>> the patches compile, but I cannot test them.  I do not have the
> >>> hardware to do so, nor will I spend the time to test boards that I
> >>> have absolutely no involvement with.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That sound like a great idea, introduce significant modifications
> >> without testing...
> >
> > The mods I'm interested in are the architectural changes which I can
> > and will test.  The DataFlash changes are collateral damage.  The
> > alternative for me is to break dataflash support without even
> > attempting to providing a solution.
> >
> >>
> >> I think you should spend time on modifying things you *can* test.
> >
> > Then how does *anybody* attempt to fix common code?  Nobody can test
> > all platforms.
> No, but you started off by saying you specifically are focusing on
> dataflash,
> and then you need to test on the primary target for the dataflash
> which is the AT91 series.

Then I apologies and ask for forgiveness.  I want to see some of the
crazy side cases removed from the generic routines (and replaced with
generic hooks where appropriate).  I should have couched it more in
those terms when I first brought it up.

Plus, looking deeper there are similar issues with MMC and flash
writing which can probably be cleaned up at the same time (as
discussed in a previous email)


Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely at secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195

More information about the U-Boot mailing list