From: Jonathan Larmour <jifl@jifvik.org>
To: Simon Kallweit <simon.kallweit@intefo.ch>
Cc: "ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org" <ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: NAND review
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 01:02:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A134A31.4080806@jifvik.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A126D59.7070404@intefo.ch>
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.
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.
Jifl
--
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-20 1:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-19 8:27 Simon Kallweit
2009-05-19 13:47 ` Ross Younger
2009-05-19 14:17 ` Andrew Lunn
2009-05-20 13:24 ` Bart Veer
2009-05-20 13:34 ` Rutger Hofman
2009-05-20 13:53 ` Andrew Lunn
2009-05-20 13:56 ` Gary Thomas
2009-05-20 14:22 ` Andrew Lunn
2009-05-20 15:22 ` Andrew Lunn
2009-05-20 15:34 ` Bart Veer
2009-05-20 13:58 ` Rutger Hofman
2009-05-20 14:16 ` Ross Younger
2009-05-20 14:21 ` Gary Thomas
2009-05-20 15:25 ` Ross Younger
2009-05-20 15:37 ` Gary Thomas
2009-05-19 16:29 ` Andrew Lunn
2009-06-03 8:51 ` Andrew Lunn
2009-06-03 10:21 ` Ross Younger
2009-06-03 10:48 ` Andrew Lunn
2009-06-03 11:52 ` Simon Kallweit
2009-06-03 12:26 ` Rutger Hofman
2009-06-03 13:33 ` Jürgen Lambrecht
2009-06-10 17:39 ` Nick Garnett
2009-06-11 11:25 ` Rutger Hofman
2009-06-13 16:31 ` Andrew Lunn
2009-06-18 14:10 ` Nick Garnett
2009-06-19 7:47 ` Andrew Lunn
2009-06-19 14:14 ` Ross Younger
2009-06-19 15:02 ` Andrew Lunn
2009-06-19 16:54 ` Jürgen Lambrecht
2009-06-29 11:09 ` Nick Garnett
2009-06-19 8:07 ` Andrew Lunn
2009-06-19 11:37 ` Daniel Morris
2009-06-19 12:06 ` Andrew Lunn
2009-05-20 1:02 ` Jonathan Larmour [this message]
2009-05-20 7:11 ` Simon Kallweit
2009-05-20 11:12 ` Rutger Hofman
2009-05-20 11:29 ` Simon Kallweit
2009-05-20 13:37 ` Rutger Hofman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4A134A31.4080806@jifvik.org \
--to=jifl@jifvik.org \
--cc=ecos-devel@ecos.sourceware.org \
--cc=simon.kallweit@intefo.ch \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).