in general, this seems to go in a good direction.  certainly better than 
previous attempts.  there are some issues with this patch though.

can you split up independent issues into independent patches ?  the 
flashverify command stuff for example should be a patch by itself (and further 
discussed since i'm pretty sure it breaks existing behavior).  then have one 
patch which simply adds the new stub enable/disable/write_start/cls fields.  
then one which adds the spi bus driver, and finally one which adds the spi 
flash driver.

the style in a bunch of new code is slightly broken:
 - dont use tabs ... use 4 spaces to indent
 - no trailing whitespace on lines
 - no trailing new lines in files
 - func calls are like:
        foo (arg, arg, arg);
 - dont use inline var decls like:
        for (int i .......
 - use space in between operators:
        i == 0
        i >= 0

with the spi bus driver, if the 3 main pins arent specified, then just try to 
grab pins with the relevant name.  so if people dont specify MOSI, then 
default to the signal name "MOSI".

you call printf() in a bunch of places.  these all need to be changed to 
urj_log() and such.

i'm thinking we should abstract out the cfi structures a bit rather than 
trying to stick spi flash info into cfi structs.

i think you changed the binary verify code to only work with msbin's.  the 
current logic treats files as raw binaries.

and of course, by now, the code will need to be rebased onto the current code 
base as a bunch of things have changed.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security 
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes 
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2
_______________________________________________
UrJTAG-development mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/urjtag-development

Reply via email to