Sascha, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sascha Hauer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:58 AM > To: Timur Tabi > Cc: Menon, Nishanth; Laurent Desnogues; Kamat, Nishant; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > u-boot- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [U-Boot-Users] [Patch 0/9] U-boot-V2: Introduce I2C support for > SDP3430 > > but I'm too unsure if it's a good idea to adopt full-featured > frameworks like I2C from the kernel. BTW U-Boot-v1 does the same thing > with NAND support for example. Hmm... flexibility Vs size.. the age old argument ;). When I started considering i2c I pulled code from U-Boot v1 and started putting in u-boot v2, then realized I was barking up the wrong tree. I then realized that probably it is better to pull in the linux i2c arch in to u-boot v2 and add flags to enable/disable features to control the size. Having a Kconfig does help a ton. The "new style" drivers were perfect to fit into u-boot-v2 architecture + I get to enable folks who already have linux drivers to pull it down to u-boot v2 with very little effort. The learning curve is smaller, infact, almost non-existant.
I think the best choice is selective addition as the need arises. We may not need V4L2 and similar things.. Where we can make compatibility happen, that would be good IMHO. We can then proceed with customizing and improving it to our needs. Why reinvent the wheel? Regards, Nishanth Menon ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
