From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26874 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2009 15:51:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 26866 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Oct 2009 15:51:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from virtual.bogons.net (HELO virtual.bogons.net) (193.178.223.136) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:51:44 +0000 Received: from jifvik.dyndns.org (jifvik.dyndns.org [85.158.45.40]) by virtual.bogons.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.2) with ESMTP id n92Fpf417193; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:51:42 +0100 (BST) Received: from [172.31.1.126] (neelix.jifvik.org [172.31.1.126]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by jifvik.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FA5B3FEB; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 16:51:41 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: <4AC6218C.20407@jifvik.org> Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:51:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Larmour User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.8-1.1.fc4 (X11/20060501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ross Younger , eCos developers Cc: Rutger Hofman , Simon Kallweit Subject: NAND technical review Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-devel-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-devel-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 As per my ecos-discuss mail just now, I would like to get going straight away with a public discussion of the _technical_ merits of both NAND implementations. There is a risk of rehashing old ground, but I'm sure in both cases things have moved on a bit since the last time round, not least in response to comments, so it would also be good to clarify the current state. I think at first the ball is really in Ross/eCosCentric's court to give the technical rationale for the decision, so I'd like to ask him first to give his rationale and his own perspective of the comparison of the pros/cons. I think the primary onus of the legwork is on eCosCentric, not least because they saw Rutger's version before implementation - although that was an early version, so it's entirely possible things have changed now. Obviously I would especially like Rutger's view on whether any purported benefits of eCosCentric's implementation are really the case, and any claimed disadvantages of his own are plausible. I suspect some of this to come down to subjective opinions of course. But this is an open discussion, so I'd appreciate anyone's views. I'd especially value Simon Kallweit's views as someone who has actually used both code implementations which gives him a very good perspective. Although if anyone wants to contribute, please keep it on topic, within this thread, and technical. Thanks. Over to Ross.... Jifl -- --["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine