[ECOS] NAND support

Rutger Hofman rutger@cs.vu.nl
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
After stripping:
-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 
> possible.

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 mailing list