Forums

at91rm9200dk u-boot port messed up...

Started by jedi March 12, 2005
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
jedi wrote:
> 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
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 ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com This message is intended to be my own personal view and it may or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> jedi wrote: > >>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 > > > 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. >
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
jedi wrote:
> 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...
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.
> rick
-- Best Regards, Ulf Samuelsson ulf@a-t-m-e-l.com This message is intended to be my own personal view and it may or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> jedi wrote: > >>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... > > > And you will test these modifications thoroughly to ensure that you do not > break AT91RM9200 support?
Don't plan to spend 1600 Euros just for cleaning up code (o;
> 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.
May I take this personally? (o; rick