Re: NAND review

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Simon Kallweit wrote:
>> Well these are my first thoughts on the prereleased code. I hope more 
>> people take a look at it and we can have a discussion and soon decide 
>> which NAND framework we're going to use.
> 
> Just to clarify something here, I don't think it's a case of this one or 
> that one. Provided someone is prepared to put in the effort, it is 
> possible to have a mix of both, with the best aspects of both. It seems 
> unlikely to me that one of them will be superior to the other in every way.

True, but I think we're still heading for one implementation which is 
going to be refined with code/ideas of the other.

> Like you, I'm also concerned about some aspects of Ross's use of 
> partitioning (and have emailed some details privately to him about 
> that). But I'm also concerned about possibly having too much layering in 
> Rutger's version for small simple implementations. I guess we'll wait 
> for Ross to reply with more detail on his rationale for the differences 
> to Rutger's.

Yes, I generally like the overall lean design of Ross's solution a bit 
more. Currently my only concern is that there is quite a bit of code 
sitting in the platform HALs, and a lot of this will going to be 
duplicated for different ports. But I also see Ross's point about total 
flexibility here, and that it's going to be difficult to have a more 
generic solution which is going to work for all the cases without 
getting messy.

Simon