In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > > > > > Of course, your solution will work with multiple, different SPI > > > > controllers while mine won't, but is that really necessary? > > > > > > > > Your solution comes with more error checking as well, which might be a > > > > good thing, but since it comes with a cost of additional memory and > > > > flash footprint, I think it should be optional. Maybe we could provide > > > > some library functions to simplify the drivers that want this? > > > > > > I see. Well, I don't have a strong preference. So, either we need more > > > votes, or the one who implements it decides:-) > > > > That was two pros - did I miss any cons ? > > I think, those were two pros - but for two somewhat different solutions.
Oops? "your solution will work with multiple, different SPI controllers" and "Your solution comes with more error checking as well" seem to me as if it were 2 x pro for your code. Am I missing something? Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What's the sound a name makes when it's dropped? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
