Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 09:40:38 -0700 From: Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Digi CCWMX53 Message-ID: <CABx9NuTo_CxnzcmmOpUetMGR2QcyPyReveTVDm=4fha8WTKFCQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1412687805.12052.199.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <CABx9NuQr%2BdEb_yj3ypEe6Sb_qPY%2BqP74n0x1K5=_K6Zoio2vkw@mail.gmail.com> <C439A1ED-8AA0-4CA5-B375-D80E8BD4C624@me.com> <CABx9NuTU=E7ceQ=5=Qk%2B=e9jwLjnJZf2Lr70d7XbwAYRD5nd7Q@mail.gmail.com> <E12E12A8-32B9-4B26-B6C4-65DF9F43C396@me.com> <CABx9NuT31dVubDCCt7M5DGhoNqu0a9saxuB1fb9naq42Z8mi%2BA@mail.gmail.com> <A73CCB0A-2ED9-4505-BACD-264F768D2D72@bsdimp.com> <CABx9NuROVKvAcqj166=z%2BvP5zemjost6m12H5fLvEbKU8%2BA0xw@mail.gmail.com> <27A69721-D93D-4D4C-883A-718CFFF52B21@bsdimp.com> <CABx9NuRybC-8z4XTMO=0vu824%2BEzVhiDu-vsxteBr6zchorgmA@mail.gmail.com> <DD01C5E3-15BE-4953-A4AA-C0F67D2F0382@bsdimp.com> <CABx9NuRwenFSPkg-8o5ba=-_82WakXuOyCiiS=Rbxegwcp1GfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABx9NuScNhPPMsHL_x8xuYR0Oz97CM9wmRxuXxFSRMT10RKXJQ@mail.gmail.com> <1412613830.12052.121.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <CABx9NuRFBvP4SG9%2BnvV=MwYpbRMfy%2BjJOv=wmx7xNO9tiK-8qg@mail.gmail.com> <FCE5AA26-AD01-4A61-8E1B-3CBCBBA07CB0@bsdimp.com> <CABx9NuQQ3VQCLk0xGXxk-R_eUVdeMOKZWDg%2BS1yXf30fCP7Sow@mail.gmail.com> <CABx9NuQ-FpM5WUp9M4TaqaqgX-9H-zX6S4YGmAiJfWOmCmp_7g@mail.gmail.com> <1412687805.12052.199.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ian, Thanks for your candid response. I was waiting for this shoe to drop. I would not say I am discouraged, I would say that my expectations have been tempered. Let me evaluate what you have said and I will consider my options. Thanks, Russ On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 21:41 -0700, Russell Haley wrote: >> Hey, >> >> Okay, I lied about waiting till the weekend. I am looking at the atmel >> files. Should I be replacing the at91 moniker with imx (processor >> class) or mx53 (implementation)? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Russ > > With a quick glance at the manuals, it appears imx51 and imx53 have the > same nand controller hardware, but imx6 is completely different, so > 'imx5' would be the right prefix for file and function/data names. > > That said, I want to point out that there's a huge difference between > the simplistic memory controller for accessing nand in the at91 hardware > and the much more complex nand hardware in the imx5 series. I don't > think you're going to get far by trying to copy the at91 driver. In > fact, I think you're going to find it impossible to make the imx5 BCH > hardware work with the upper layers of the nand software in freebsd > without some serious redesign of the upper layers (and then of course > the associated rewriting of existing low-level nfc drivers). > > It's not that I want to discourage you from trying, I just want to be > realistic here. What you're embarking on isn't a couple days of > converting an existing driver -- in my estimation, you're looking at > weeks of work. I don't mean 3 calendar weeks of a couple hours each > evening hobbyist work, I'm talking hundreds of hours of development > time. The harsh reality is that freebsd doesn't have adequate nand > flash support for modern hardware. We don't even have the framework of > a design that can accomodate things like hardware offload of ECC. > > -- Ian > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CABx9NuTo_CxnzcmmOpUetMGR2QcyPyReveTVDm=4fha8WTKFCQ>