[U-Boot] [PATCH 4/7] 83xx: Migrate CONFIG_DDR_ECC_CMD toCONFIG_EDAC_FSL_ECC

[Peter Tyser <ptyser@xes-inc.com>]

Please stop top-posting.

On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:51 +0800, Liu Dave-R63238 wrote:
> 83xx ECC test code is really perfect, but it is regretful that it can
> not reused to 85xx/86xx right now.
> I'm not sure which approach is better between Peter's and this.
> Because I still have not read carefully Peter's code.

<snip>

The 83xx ECC test code may have been perfect for your needs, but it was
not perfect for mine:)  Or most people I would think.  As I mentioned
before, I put an emphasis on the error reporting.  Wolfgang and I
discussed exactly this in v1 of the patch: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot at lists.denx.de/msg24216.html

<quote>
> 83xx, 85xx, and 86xx could all share an implementation I believe. I 
> didn't integrate the 83xx in this patch because it seemed to have a 
> different "goal" than the patch I submitted.  The 83xx implementation 
> supported a high degree of tweaking registers which I personally find 
> unnecessary for general use.  I think that if someone wants that level 
> of control, they could just modify the registers directly since they 
> have to have the 83xx user's manual handy anyway.

Agreed.

> The implementation I submitted has limited, common features and much 
> better error reporting.  The error reporting is the feature that would 
> be used 98% of the time, not the tweaking of registers.  I'd be happy to 
> include the 83xx implementation in this patch, but I'd vote to strip out 
> most of the current 83xx features - ie basically remove the 83xx ecc 
> code and replace it with the  85/86xx implementation I submitted.  Would 
> 83xx people be OK with this?  Or have any suggestions on what the 
> combined implementation should look like?

I have yet to see a user who actually uses the existing code on 83xx,
so as far as I am concerned I'll be fine with the common, simpler
code.
</quote>

Best,
Peter