On Friday, January 17, 2014 at 07:29:54 PM, Gerhard Sittig wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 22:42 +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Marek Vasut <ma...@denx.de> wrote: > > > Anyway, I feel we're sinking deeper and deeper into this > > > sh*t, we should instead take a step back and re-think the > > > whole approach until we break it even more. > > > > Yes - will shrink once we plan for new approach. But I'm > > unclear with new SPI-NOR. > > Regarding this specific patch: I assume what Marek suggested was > to restrict the "SPI slave" information to what's specific to an > SPI slave. It's just not true that every SPI slave is a flash > chip (an assumption which QSPI developers appear to fall for > rather easily).
Heh, really ? :) Otherwise I agree with you. btw. I honestly don't quite understand this inclination to building separate SPI NOR controller instead of building full-fat SPI bus controller :( > I was about to make a similar comment, that trimming the > identifiers so rigorously leads to code that only "initiated" > people can read. OK, I have to admit I am rather blunt and my rambling may sound nasty. Please don't take it personally ;-) > Even those who want to learn have no chance, > there would not be a legend of any kind (except for the commit > message, which soon is buried and not obvious to look up). And > even with the legend, it's tedious to train the casual > co-developer to those specific abbreviations, which may not even > be in wide spread use outside of the U-Boot code base. > > So I agree with Marek that we should take a deep breath, and be > aware of the consequences before taking a specific direction (and > having a clear direction would also be beneficial). > > A more involved answer I will send to the quad SPI thread. Thanks for expainding so and please keep me in the loop on the qspi :) Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
