On Monday 06 July 2009 02:26:20 Prafulla Wadaskar wrote: > From: Mike Frysinger [mailto:vap...@gentoo.org] > > On Friday 03 July 2009 13:28:01 Prafulla Wadaskar wrote: > > > + { > > > + .idcode0 = MXIC_ID_MT_MX2512855E, > > > + .idcode1 = MXIC_ID_MD_MX2512855E, > > > + .page_size = 256, > > > + .pages_per_sector = 16, > > > + .sectors_per_block = 16, > > > + .nr_blocks = 256, > > > + .name = "MX25L12855E", > > > + }, > > > }; > > > > can you compare the code size to see if combining the id's in > > a u16 is better than comparing multiple u8's ? > > At this moment we can save 28bytes with above suggestions, > but Mx25L12805D and MX25L12855E have different memory types (0x20, 0x26 > resp), and they have different protection algorithm features which I was > trying to expose through "protect" command interface in my next patch, then > we will need this abstraction. So I wish to keep this. > What do you think?
i was referring to also the .text differences, not just the .data. so with a
u16, the structure would look like:
{...
.id = 0x1826,
.name = "MX25L12855E",
...},{...
.id = 0x1820,
.name = "MX25L12805D",
...},
and the probe would look something like:
u16 id = idcode[0] | (idcode[1] << 8);
...
if (params->id == id)
...
i dont think this would prevent you from doing protection detection on the
0x18 family as you could create a new define:
#define MX_PROT_FAMILY_FOO 0x18
and then in the probe code do:
if (idcode[1] == MX_PROT_FAMILY_FOO)
i dont think the u8 -> u16 conversion would cause problems here would it ?
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
