This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: NAND support
- From: Simon Kallweit <simon dot kallweit at intefo dot ch>
- To: Rutger Hofman <rutger at cs dot vu dot nl>
- Cc: eCos Disuss <ecos-discuss at ecos dot sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 13:18:03 +0200
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] NAND support
- References: <49FFE56B.2070009@intefo.ch> <4A00122D.9060007@cs.vu.nl>
Rutger Hofman wrote:
What made you select UFFS? It licence, or its properties? Care to share
your reasons to not use YAFFS?
A bit of both I guess. As I'm developing a platform which will be used
for proprietary products, so I have to make sure we have the freedom to
keep the application closed. We could always get a license for YAFFS,
but I'd rather use something without the need for licensing. Second, it
seems YAFFS is quite a bit more heavyweight than UFFS. As we're rather
tight on ROM/RAM, I'm looking for a really lightweight FS, and UFFS
seems to fit the bill rather nicely.
I would be interested to see a UBI/UBIFS port too. My guess is that the
NAND flash interface required by UBI is very small, and it might turn
out that porting it to use eCos NAND is trivial. This would mean a
UBI/UBIFS in user space though, and I don't know how much work that
would mean, and whether it would be supported by the MTD people.
I was thinking about this too, but again, I think UFFS is a lot more
lightweight than UBI/UBIFS.
The nice thing about eCos is it's configurability. More options cannot
really hurt IMHO as long as share code and subsystems (NAND) wherever
possible.
Simon
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss