[ECOS] NAND support
Tue May 5 11:46:00 GMT 2009
Simon Kallweit wrote:
> Rutger Hofman wrote:
>> What made you select UFFS? It licence, or its properties? Care to
>> share your reasons to not use YAFFS?
> A bit of both I guess. As I'm developing a platform which will be used
> for proprietary products, so I have to make sure we have the freedom to
> keep the application closed. We could always get a license for YAFFS,
> but I'd rather use something without the need for licensing. Second, it
> seems YAFFS is quite a bit more heavyweight than UFFS. As we're rather
> tight on ROM/RAM, I'm looking for a really lightweight FS, and UFFS
> seems to fit the bill rather nicely.
When I do a YAFFS/direct library build with -Os on my x86:
-rw-r--r-- 1 rutger rutger 81768 2009-05-05 13:42 libyaffs.a
-rw-r--r-- 1 rutger rutger 56016 2009-05-05 13:40 libyaffs.a
Comparable output from 'size libyaffs.a'.
I've seen worse...
> The nice thing about eCos is it's configurability. More options cannot
> really hurt IMHO as long as share code and subsystems (NAND) wherever
I agree completely!
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
More information about the Ecos-discuss