From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:04:42 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 6/8] omap_gpmc: BCH8 support (ELM based) In-Reply-To: <50A4ED43.5060505@gmail.com> References: <1352243195-64326-1-git-send-email-ilya.yanok@cogentembedded.com> <1352243195-64326-7-git-send-email-ilya.yanok@cogentembedded.com> <50A4ED43.5060505@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121121170442.GB6794@oliver-linux> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:25:23PM +0100, Andreas Bie?mann wrote: > Dear Ilya Yanok, > > On 07.11.2012 00:06, Ilya Yanok wrote: > > From: Mansoor Ahamed > > > > This patch adds support for BCH8 error correction code to omap_gpmc > > driver. We use GPMC to generate codes/syndromes but we need ELM to find > > error locations from given syndrome. > > > > first of all, I wonder why this is so different than the kernel > implementation for BCH. I mean the API (and content) of this and commit > 8d602cf50d3bba864bc1438f486b626df69c87b3 mainline linux seems to differ. > The main question coming to mind is: Is the resulting OOB layout > compatible then? I think this has been mostly addressed now, but for clarity: - We do NOT want to have > 1 layout used per NAND chip unless we must (historically we did because we had ROM that couldn't use >1bit ECC). - We DO want to utilize the HW as this is the only easy way to get a match with the BCH constants the ROM uses. - There are corresponding kernel patches already posted and working their way along. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: