Dear Dave,
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> [dave] sorry for that, I'm using the webmail to access my mailbox.
> the webmail is stupid.
I see :-(
> Maybe. But still both the existing common/cmd_sata.c and your new
> cmd_sata2.c implement the very same functions (like do_sata()) with
> more or less the same sub-commands etc.
>
> [dave] I think the same part is focusing on command line.
Not only. I think implementations of functions like sata_read() or
sata_write() should be generic enough and not need to be duplicated.
> [dave] if I choose current command/cmd_sata.c, and don't move the drivers
> part of
> cmd_sata.c to drivers/block. I think it will add extra-space for my image.
> so, the best choice is move the drivers part of cmd_sata.c to drivers/block.
> what do you think about it?
Probably you are right.
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]
No one may kill a man. Not for any purpose. It cannot be condoned.
-- Kirk, "Spock's Brain", stardate 5431.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
_______________________________________________
U-Boot-Users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
