From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18502 invoked by alias); 15 May 2009 06:44:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 18493 invoked by uid 22791); 15 May 2009 06:44:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (HELO moutng.kundenserver.de) (212.227.126.186) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 May 2009 06:43:54 +0000 Received: from intranator.net.lan (p57AB8474.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [87.171.132.116]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MKv5w-1M4r950Lby-0000vC; Fri, 15 May 2009 08:43:51 +0200 Received: from localhost (intranator.net.lan [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582F51A1; Fri, 15 May 2009 08:43:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.101.21] (software-mob01.net.lan [192.168.101.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by intranator.net.lan (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE775EB; Fri, 15 May 2009 08:43:45 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4A0D0F19.1000803@cetoni.de> Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 06:44:00 -0000 From: cetoni GmbH - Uwe Kindler User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ecos-maintainers@ecos.sourceware.org CC: rutger@cs.vu.nl Subject: Re: NAND & YAFFS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 Hi, I completely agree with Rutgers opinion about his development of eCos NAND support. (http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-maintainers/2009-05/msg00011.html). I think the situation is very disappointing for him. He invested a lot of work and time, he made his project public very early and he carefully designed the NAND flash IO and device layers. Because his work was public from the beginning, anyone could contribute, criticize or help. At the moment his implementation is the only one I know in detail and the only one that is public accessible. Furthermore its NAND framework is already used and known by other eCos community members. So at the moment I tend to say, Rutgers implementation is the current eCos NAND framework. I think before we decide if some parts of eCosCentrics NAND implementation can be used, we should carefully check both implementations and discuss pros and cons. To do this we would need public access to the eCosCentric NAND implementation as soon as possible. Furthermore I would like to know from eCosCentric in some short words, why their NAND implementation/design is better than Rutgers implementation. If this is not relizable within some days, we should stay with Rutgers implementation to get working NAND support as fast as possible. Kind regards, Dipl. Inf. (FH) Uwe Kindler Software Engineering -- cetoni GmbH Am Wiesenring 6 D-07554 Korbussen Tel.: +49 (0) 36602 338 28 Fax: +49 (0) 36602 338 11 uwe.kindler@cetoni.de http://www.cetoni.de