This is the mail archive of the ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: various submissions

From: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
To: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
Cc: "Koeller, T." <Thomas dot Koeller at baslerweb dot com>, "'Gary Thomas'" <gthomas at eCosCentric dot com>, eCos patches <ecos-patches at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 04:30:38 +0000
Subject: Re: various submissions
References: <850597605E79D21182830008C7A4B9CF1EB42473@COMM1> <3DD07E96.3090604@eCosCentric.com>

Jonathan Larmour wrote:

I am currently _very_ busy, so I'm very much inclined to accept this
offer. If you send patches, I will be happy to test them with my flash
chip driver.


My next mail will have a patch.

Hmm... I've encountered a dilemma. It appears that the generic flash driver communicates the total number of blocks and block size to the low level driver's unlock block function.

I have no idea why this is the case. Why would the low level driver need to have the block size passed in when it already knows it?

I suspect I should fix it by simply removing those arguments of the flash_unlock_block functions in all low level drivers. They can use flash_info.block_size and flash_info.blocks since the CDL will indicate their driver will still be using that scheme anyway.

If there are no objections I'll do that first.

Jifl
--
eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ <info@eCosCentric.com>
--[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
--[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine

References:
- Re: various submissions
  - From: Jonathan Larmour

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]