Re: NAND technical review

Jürgen Lambrecht wrote:
> Ross Younger wrote:
>> Jonathan Larmour wrote:
[snip]

> Is it possible that R's model follows better the "general" structure of 
> drivers in eCos?
> I mean: (I follow our CVS, could maybe differ from the final commit of 
> Rutger to eCos)
> 1. with the low-level chip-specific code in /devs 
> (devs/flash/arm/at91/[board] and devs/flash/arm/at91/nfc, and 
> devs/flash/micron/nand)
> 2. with the "middleware" in /io (io/flash_nand/current/src and there 
> /anc, /chip, /controller)
> 3. with the high-level code in /fs

As far as I know, this has been the case for some releases already.

> Is it correct that R's abstraction makes it possible to add partitioning 
> easily?
> (because that is an interesting feature of E's implementation)

I think it would not be hard to add. It might involve a change in API 
though, which is no problem as long as the number of clients is small, 
and all the more when those clients desire it.

Rutger