No, there is no need to, but I think it would make things easier. What I can suggest instead is to add a new optional parameter to the flash configuration selecting the default interface. At least that would remove the need to remember to run the lpc32xx select command at runtime.
The argument about the default is because most people will want to use the SLC controller and not the MLC. Neither linux nor uboot support the MLC controller, so people using the MLC controller will have to write their own driver. And if they don't care much about it, they will have the linux/uboot complaining about bad blocks or wrong oob layout. Other argument is that todays mlc devices are only available in very large sizes, much big to be usefull only with 4 address cycles. There is no configurations in the tree using this driver. Thanks. On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Michael Schwingen <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 04/12/2011 06:09 PM, schrieb Alexandre Pereira da Silva: >> Hi, >> >> Here two patches about this issue. >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Is anybody using the LPC32XX nand driver? >>> >>> I'm having some issues about large nand devices support. It's >>> relatively easy to make the current openocd driver suporte larger >>> devices in SLC mode than in MLC. >>> >>> I think, in most cases, the SLC driver should be the default as its >>> enough for most devices, instead of the MLC as it is today. > I do not really like changing defaults - this looks like it would break > all existing config files that rely on the default behaviour. > > Is there really a *need* to change the default? > > cu > Michael > > _______________________________________________ > Openocd-development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development > _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
