Re: NAND technical review

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl@jifvik.org>]

Rutger Hofman wrote:
> 
> I agree. Many of the printfs are leftovers from debugging stages. They 
> should go (and will go anyway at a next code cleanup), and an error 
> should be reported upwards where that isn't done yet; or possibly 
> asserts when they flag a programming error in this layer -- preferences? 
> I will do this somewhere in the coming weeks.

I think that's the way to do it - asserts for programming errors (things 
which should never ever happen), and errors for things which could maybe 
happen in the field, e.g. due to hardware errors.

If you prefer you could change the existing printfs into some sorts of 
macros which you'd only want to see if you're debugging NAND operation, 
and completely left out otherwise. Like CYG_NAND_CHATTER. Or perhaps some 
of them should be turned into CYG_NAND_CHATTER, it depends.

> When the dependency on a memory allocator is also gone (see other 
> response), there is no practical obstacle left to switch from explicit 
> initialisation to init-time constructor.
> 
> If this makes a difference in acceptance, I will convert from malloc and 
> explicit initialisation somewhere within one month.

If the decision is made to adopt your one, that's a change I think would 
be beneficial yes, and can be done then.

Jifl
-- 
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine