Re: NAND technical review

Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Rutger Hofman wrote:
>> Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> On a separate point, while I'm here, I think the use of printf via 
> cyg_nand_global.pf would want tidied up a lot. Some of them seem to be 
> there to mention errors to the user, but without any programmatic 
> treatment of the errors, primarily reporting them to higher layers.
> 
> It should also be possible to eliminate the overheads of the printf. 
> Right now there's quite a lot of them, involving function calls, 
> allocation of const string data, and occasionally calculation of 
> arguments, even if the pf function pointer is pointing to an empty null 
> printf function. It should be possible to turn them off entirely, and 
> not be any worse off for it (including error reporting back up to higher 
> layers). It might not be so bad if the strings were a lot shorter, or 
> the printf functions less frequently used, but being able to turn them 
> off entirely would seem better.

I agree. Many of the printfs are leftovers from debugging stages. They 
should go (and will go anyway at a next code cleanup), and an error 
should be reported upwards where that isn't done yet; or possibly 
asserts when they flag a programming error in this layer -- preferences? 
I will do this somewhere in the coming weeks.

When the dependency on a memory allocator is also gone (see other 
response), there is no practical obstacle left to switch from explicit 
initialisation to init-time constructor.

If this makes a difference in acceptance, I will convert from malloc and 
explicit initialisation somewhere within one month.

Rutger