> > Maybe im missing something here, but i only see a couple of > definitions for the base address. There is no actually change to the > flash driver to support a second device. Is this correct? I did look > at the driver once, for adding a second controller. It looked messy to > do in an efficient way. The driver only assumes a single controller > and expanding that did not look easy. > I only added the defines for the base address in order to have the startup code enable the second EFC correctly. I haven't done anything for the flash driver yet.
We are thinking of making a flash bootloader, using Redboot as a starting point but trimming it down and changing it to be able to load binaries directly into flash and run the binaries from flash as well. This work will obviously involve a look at the at91 flash driver. Which brings me to the next question: Will be eCos 3.0 be released with flash_v2 ? If so it will make more sense to continue this work on the flash_v2 branch. Regards John Eigelaar
