On Sunday 15 November 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
>
> > Refactoring can come later.
>
> Personally, I think refactoring should come first, along with a patch to
> hook up this routine into the system. Right now, it's dangling unused.
I took it as a "is this part good enough to merge?" query;
answer
>
> Personally, I think refactoring should come first, along with a patch to
> hook up this routine into the system. Right now, it's dangling unused.
>
It won't go unused for long :).
>
> I have been working hard to eliminate duplicated code, so I am not eager
> to see more entering the tree.
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 02:19 -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Sunday 15 November 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote:
> > I've done an implementation of reading using an on-chip algorithm for NAND
> > devices attached to ARM chips. It seems to work on my AT91SAM9260 board
> > increasing nand dump from 0.2 k
On Sunday 15 November 2009, Dean Glazeski wrote:
> I've done an implementation of reading using an on-chip algorithm for NAND
> devices attached to ARM chips. It seems to work on my AT91SAM9260 board
> increasing nand dump from 0.2 kb/s to 9.2 kb/s. Not sure if this is the
> best implementation,
Hi all,
I've done an implementation of reading using an on-chip algorithm for NAND
devices attached to ARM chips. It seems to work on my AT91SAM9260 board
increasing nand dump from 0.2 kb/s to 9.2 kb/s. Not sure if this is the
best implementation, so take a look. By the way, there is some room
