at91rm9200dk u-boot port messed up...

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Since I'm doing a port for an architecture using also SPI flash
for booting u-boot I need to remove the existing CFG_DATAFLASH
configuration which should be portable as the name says but
it is hardcoded only for the AT91RM9200DK platform.

Don't know which one came to this idea also naming the AT45DB
driver to dataflash.c.

Asking here if someone could test the my changes so not only
AT91RM9200 platforms can use SPI flash for booting u-boot
and I can't afford an expensive development kit just to
clean up the u-boot sources which should have been done
by the intial writer.


rick

Re: at91rm9200dk u-boot port messed up...
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Hi Rick,

Dataflash is an Atmel Trademark so it is
correct to use the name "dataflash.c" for an AT45DBxxx specific driver
and CFG_DATAFLASH for the configuration

Atmel does not call AT25Fxxx chips Dataflash(tm)
even if they are flash and use the SPI bus.

CFG_DATAFLASH should be used for AT45DB and nothing else
or you willl be violating the trademark.
If you have another SPI flash you need to come up with  "CFG_SPIBOOT" or
something else.

--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: at91rm9200dk u-boot port messed up...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Thought that this would be some trademark issue...

but then again this would mean that in the "common" source tree
2 different configurations are using the same code...which should have
been avoided by firstly using "CFG_SPI_BOOT" in the common source tree.

So it is just bad coding in my and others oppinion by thinking that
Atmel might be the only platform using SPI (o;

Guess I have to go through all the "trademark" mess and remove all
appearance of "CFG_DATAFLASH" in the "common/" source tree...



rick


Re: at91rm9200dk u-boot port messed up...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

And you will test these modifications thoroughly to ensure that you do not
break AT91RM9200 support?
I suggest you let things remain if you dont plan to do that
and add your own configurations elsewhere.
I think that this forum is the wrong place to have this debate.
There are good distribution list with a lot of knowledgeable people
that can judge the consequences of your actions.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

--
Best Regards,
Ulf Samuelsson
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: at91rm9200dk u-boot port messed up...
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Don't plan to spend 1600 Euros just for cleaning up code (o;

Quoted text here. Click to load it

May I take this personally? (o;


rick

Site Timeline