Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:16:38 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: jb@what-creek.com Cc: atrens@nortel.com, current@freebsd.org, mf.danger@gmail.com, phk@phk.freebsd.dk, Alexander@leidinger.net, small@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD's embedded agenda Message-ID: <20060601.121638.1273920169.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20060530051455.GA60261@what-creek.com> References: <20060530040220.GA59831@what-creek.com> <9f7850090605292201x570d93b4v8a7dd3ea0c70f841@mail.gmail.com> <20060530051455.GA60261@what-creek.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20060530051455.GA60261@what-creek.com> John Birrell <jb@what-creek.com> writes: : As I said, writing a NAND driver under geom on FreeBSD is a trivial matter. : That is what I did. The driver wasn't committed to FreeBSD because it : is hardware specific to the board due to the way the the processor I/O : is mapped. If you study the NAND implementations on embedded hardware, : you will see that making a general operating system support them all with : drivers is hard to do because of the different ways that the NAND chips : are mapped in I/O. It's not like they are on a general bus that makes : access to them the same. Yes. This driver does have a number of issues. There needs to be some additional layers of abstraction to make it generic. The driver you wrote works very well (we only had to fix a one or two minor bugs). Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060601.121638.1273920169.imp>