On 08/27/2010 04:46 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On 08/27/2010 04:36 PM, Ben Gardiner wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Ben Gardiner >> <bengardi...@nanometrics.ca> wrote: >> I have performed a refactoring but I have reached an impasse: the >> 'mtdparts spread' command is written for mtd devices whereas the >> get_len_incl_bad() function is for NAND devices. I extracted a >> function, mtd_get_len_incl_bad(), to which both the spread_partition >> and nand_utils.c:get_len_incl_bad() function then delegated. > > I figured the NAND code could just call the MTD-ized get_len_incl_bad() > directly. > >> But since a board may have NAND enabled but not MTD_DEVICE (i.e. >> guruplug) I get >> link errors sometimes. > > Grr... Eventually we ought to make NAND depend on MTD_DEVICE. It's 808 > bytes currently in my build, but if we could get rid of/reduce > specialized client code, it could more than make up for it. > > For now, I guess don't worry about sharing the code.
Plus, I've got some changes to the NAND command/util code I'm about to send out that touch this -- if sharing is going to be a pain, I can go back to the version that only passes back "fits with bad blocks", "fits with no bad blocks", or "doesn't fit", and doesn't deal with 64-bit sizes because it's only used by read/write which is limited by pointer size. That simpler version is 128 bytes smaller in my build. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
