NAND review
Simon Kallweit
simon.kallweit@intefo.ch
Wed May 20 07:11:00 GMT 2009
Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Simon Kallweit wrote:
>> Well these are my first thoughts on the prereleased code. I hope more
>> people take a look at it and we can have a discussion and soon decide
>> which NAND framework we're going to use.
>
> Just to clarify something here, I don't think it's a case of this one or
> that one. Provided someone is prepared to put in the effort, it is
> possible to have a mix of both, with the best aspects of both. It seems
> unlikely to me that one of them will be superior to the other in every way.
True, but I think we're still heading for one implementation which is
going to be refined with code/ideas of the other.
> Like you, I'm also concerned about some aspects of Ross's use of
> partitioning (and have emailed some details privately to him about
> that). But I'm also concerned about possibly having too much layering in
> Rutger's version for small simple implementations. I guess we'll wait
> for Ross to reply with more detail on his rationale for the differences
> to Rutger's.
Yes, I generally like the overall lean design of Ross's solution a bit
more. Currently my only concern is that there is quite a bit of code
sitting in the platform HALs, and a lot of this will going to be
duplicated for different ports. But I also see Ross's point about total
flexibility here, and that it's going to be difficult to have a more
generic solution which is going to work for all the cases without
getting messy.
Simon
More information about the Ecos-devel
mailing list