FIS access

[Jonathan Larmour]

Gary Thomas wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 12:40, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> 
>>Oh and I think I'd prefer it just use the existing 
>>CYGACC_CALL_IF_FLASH_CFG virtual vector with different option codes. The 
>>reason to use a VV is because we only want a single place to do FLASH 
>>operations. CYGACC_CALL_IF_FLASH_CFG should probably just have been called 
>>CYGACC_CALL_IF_FLASH_OP really - it would always be the same single entity 
>>controlling the flash.
> 
> 
> "six of one, half dozen of the other" - I like to keep functionality
> separated - FCONFIG access is (in my mind) *very* different than
> generic FLASH access and FIS access different still.  The fact that
> they all distill to FLASH hardware access is incidental and could
> even change over time.

Okey dokey. It was just a preference - just seeing if we could avoid using 
up a VV (god forbid we have to extend the table size ever!).

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