Re: choosing between FCB and NFFS

2016-04-07 Thread p...@wrada.com
I prefer to keep the boot loaders as simple as possible. Unless there is good justification, I think we should move all the boot loaders to the simplest (and smallest) implementation for flash storage that we can and NOT give a choice. As an alternate if we want to keep the functionality is to

Re: choosing between FCB and NFFS

2016-04-07 Thread Christopher Collins
Upon reflection, this idea has problems of its own. The app still needs to initialize the specific flash storage package being used. So, sorry for posting before thinking! The idea could be salvaged with the use of some #if directives in the app code, but I am not sure this is any better than

Re: choosing between FCB and NFFS

2016-04-07 Thread Christopher Collins
That mostly sounds good to me, though I agree that the need to duplicate app code is not ideal. Here is an alternative idea: * Both fs and fcb export a suitable API (e.g., "bootapi"). * By default, apps depend on nffs. * If a particular feature is set in the target, the app depends on