Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 18:42:14 -1000 From: Jim Thompson <jim@netgate.com> To: John Birrell <jb@what-creek.com> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Andrew Atrens <atrens@nortel.com>, current@freebsd.org, small@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD's embedded agenda Message-ID: <B6E2C38F-191F-436B-A4F9-E2061C44C386@netgate.com> In-Reply-To: <20060530040220.GA59831@what-creek.com> References: <HCEPKPMCAJLDGJIBCLGHKEHMFGAA.james@wgold.demon.co.uk> <447B6870.8020704@nortel.com> <20060530040220.GA59831@what-creek.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 29, 2006, at 6:02 PM, John Birrell wrote: > On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 05:32:32PM -0400, Andrew Atrens wrote: >> So then we agree - write a driver that makes raw flash look like a >> CF, >> and does wear-levelling, gc, etc, under the hood. Then put whatever >> f/s you want on it. it's a start at least. Then build your kick-ass >> NAND-aware (or NOR aware or both) fs on top of that that makes use of >> some extensions that the driver provides. Okay, that's quite the >> arm wave ... I must admit that I don't know so much about the >> existing >> fs<->disk interface... > > Writing a NAND driver for FreeBSD using geom is a trivial matter. It > only takes a few days or a week at the most. > > I don't really understand what all the fuss is here. I've built > FreeBSD > embedded systems that are smaller than all the picobsd etc > configurations > which all rely on choosing programs out of the standard FreeBSD > tree and > putting them on a 'disk'. Everything you wrote is true, if (and only if) your application can deal with having the non-vm-based filesystem(s) be RO. But it was true for linux prior to JFFS/JFFS2 as well.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B6E2C38F-191F-436B-A4F9-E2061C44C386>