Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message you
wrote:
> >
> > this way, existing behavior is retained, board porters have an incentive to
> > choose the desired behavior themselves (kill the #warning), and we have
> > confidence that we didnt break (most) people.
>
> btw, i'm waiting for you to OK this pat
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday, October 07, 2010 17:26:55 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 07, 2010 15:35:44 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > > > Do you plan to post an update?
>> > >
>> > > there isnt a clear indication of wher
On Thursday, October 07, 2010 17:26:55 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday, October 07, 2010 15:35:44 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > Do you plan to post an update?
> > >
> > > there isnt a clear indication of where to take this. seems like we
> > > want to do this, and we
On Thursday, October 07, 2010 15:35:44 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > Do you plan to post an update?
> >
> > there isnt a clear indication of where to take this. seems like we want
> > to do this, and we want it as the default moving forward, but we want
> > all existing board
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <201010071300.28379.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> > Do you plan to post an update?
>
> there isnt a clear indication of where to take this. seems like we want to
> do
> this, and we want it as the default moving forward, but we want all existing
> boards to
On Wednesday, October 06, 2010 16:40:47 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> I'm not sure where we are with this.
>
> Do you plan to post an update?
there isnt a clear indication of where to take this. seems like we want to do
this, and we want it as the default moving forward, but we want all existing
boar
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <201010031819.35739.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> > Why cannot we call nand_init() multiple times, then?
>
> because of the whole of my statement. i did not want to affect code size if
> this option was disabled.
>
> in a preious patch, i had the env code doin
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:27:43 +0200
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> If possible, I would like to see this the default setting for all new
> board to be added. Existing boards should have the option to select
> this behaviour, too.
>
> What I do not want to do (if it can be avoided) is change the default
>
Dear Scott Wood,
In message <20101005113126.215b5...@udp111988uds.am.freescale.net> you wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 04:08:12 -0400
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> > On Monday, October 04, 2010 13:36:14 Scott Wood wrote:
> > > I'm wondering if we should just make this the default behavior. We
> > >
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 04:08:12 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, October 04, 2010 13:36:14 Scott Wood wrote:
> > I'm wondering if we should just make this the default behavior. We
> > already deferred the bad block scanning, perhaps this could replace
> > that.
>
> i would like that, but Wo
On Monday, October 04, 2010 13:36:14 Scott Wood wrote:
> I'm wondering if we should just make this the default behavior. We
> already deferred the bad block scanning, perhaps this could replace
> that.
i would like that, but Wolfgang indicated in the past that the default
behavior of detecting t
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 15:47:20 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_DELAYED_INIT
Seems like this should be CONFIG_ rather than CONFIG_SYS_.
I'm wondering if we should just make this the default behavior. We
already deferred the bad block scanning, perhaps this could replace
that.
On Sunday, October 03, 2010 17:40:32 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > Would it not be esier to rename your nand_delayed_init() into
> > > nand_init(), and add a "#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_DELAYED_INIT" around
> > > the current call to nand_init()?
> >
> > nand_init() cant handle be
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <201010031632.47732.vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
>
> > Would it not be esier to rename your nand_delayed_init() into
> > nand_init(), and add a "#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_DELAYED_INIT" around
> > the current call to nand_init()?
>
> nand_init() cant handle being call
On Sunday, October 03, 2010 14:27:13 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Many people like the current nand_init() behavior where it is always
> > initialized during boot and the flash size shown, but there are cases
> > where we are willing to forgo this niceness for speed/functionalit
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <1286048840-1901-1-git-send-email-vap...@gentoo.org> you wrote:
> Many people like the current nand_init() behavior where it is always
> initialized during boot and the flash size shown, but there are cases
> where we are willing to forgo this niceness for speed/fun
Many people like the current nand_init() behavior where it is always
initialized during boot and the flash size shown, but there are cases
where we are willing to forgo this niceness for speed/functionality.
So rather than change the default, introduce a delayed config option
people may enable. Th
17 matches
Mail list logo
