[U-Boot-Users] PATCH : Fixes and enhancements for NAND flash.

[Woodruff, Richard <r-woodruff2@ti.com>]

Yes placement could be improved.  However, it is done on a per block basis,
not byte, so the overhead isn't that noticeable.  Spinning a wheel every 16k
should not be that bad. (Its currently spinning at the page size instead of
the block, but that could be easily changed).

Regards,

Richard W.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wolfgang Denk [mailto:wd at denx.de] 
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 8:39 AM
To: Woodruff, Richard
Cc: u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] PATCH : Fixes and enhancements for NAND flash. 

Dear Richard,

in message <FD2AC9A020DDD51194710008C7089B200BEE2224@dlee17.itg.ti.com> you
wrote:
> 
> I do like the spinning wheel.  Is there any standard way to add a progress
> indicator into this or any code with significant delay?  Any of the users
of

Use common sense. The only thing it does is making a part of the code
which takes more time than you like eveln  slower:  I'm  not  talking
about  the few CPU cycles for the printf (putc() would have been much
simpler), but especially about trashing the cache for "pretty" things
that don't add value, and the time it takes to output this stuff on a
slow serial line.

> the code I've talked with like such a feature.  It seems that same bit of
> code has been replicated in a few places. Surly having a library call and
> some ifdef's would be acceptable.

No, not at this place. It's a different story when -  for  example  -
waiting  for a flash sector be return to ready state when erasing it.
Here you have to wait anyway, so feel free  to  implement  this  busy
wait as you like it.

> As far a code formatting, I'll see if I can't fix it up.  I find myself
> using several editors depending on the context of what I'm doing.  I've
not
> mastered any of them... When I do the diff -purN for the patch, I
generally
> don't notice differences except in the areas I have changed something.
What
> code reformatter/filter do you use?  Some of the more recent u-boot
releases
> have had a lot of style changes to the point I would suspect you ran
> something over the code.

vi and indent (indent -kr -i8 -bad -bap -nbc -br -c33 -cd33 -ncdb -ce
-ci8 -cli0 -cp33 -d0 -di1 -nfc1 -nfca -i4 -ip0 -l75  -lp  -pcs  -npsl
-nsc -nsob -nss -ts4, to be precise).


Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
Software Engineering:  Embedded and Realtime Systems,  Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87  Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88  Email: wd at denx.de
If something is different, it's either better or worse,  and  usually
both.                                                    - Larry Wall