From: "Andreas Bießmann" <andreas.biessmann@corscience.de>
To: jean-philippe francois <jp.francois@cynove.com>
Cc: Ivan Djelic <ivan.djelic@parrot.com>,
"linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: U-boot bch4_sw vs omap bch4_hw
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:35:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50C5BAD6.2010500@corscience.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGGh5h2CoQTbOL32+f3jhtvUwCbFp7EPhL7g61PFkVGtXwAd-w@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Ivan Djelic and Jean-Philippe Francois,
On 10.12.2012 10:41, jean-philippe francois wrote:
> 2012/12/8 Ivan Djelic <ivan.djelic@parrot.com>:
>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 03:26:06PM +0000, jean-philippe francois wrote:
>>> Hi Ivan,
>>>
>>> I have applied your patches for hardware bch ecc support on
>>> OMAP. On the linux side, everything is fine. However I have some trouble
>>> when it comes to u-boot and kernel interoperability.
>>>
>>> A nand page written with bch4_sw ecc by U-boot fails the ecc step when
>>> read by the kernel. Looking at a nanddump, OOB placement and size of
>>> the ecc data are the same.
>>>
>>> Do you know of any patch for u-boot that would make the bch4_sw ecc
>>> identical to the kernel one ?
can you both please have a loot at
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/147698
>> Hi Jean-Philippe,
>>
>> If you point me to a git repo with the exact u-boot version you are using,
>> I can probably provide a patch (or at least understand the problem).
>> BR,
>> --
>> Ivan
> I am using an u-boot from the arago project :
> http://arago-project.org/git/projects/?p=u-boot-omap3.git;a=tags
>
> So it is quite old.
> I will probably have to modify x-loader, too.
current u-boot do not need x-loader any more.
> Both implementation use very similar file for hardware assisted
> bch decoding.
>
> If this code is too old for you to look at, could you help me find an omap
> project that "new ecc" all the way up from x-loader to u-boot + kernel ?
>
> If I understands things correctly, I have two options if I want to use
> Nand that needs
> 4-bit ecc :
> - Stick with the old ecc scheme in x-loader and u-boot, and use
> software 4-bit bch in the kernel.
> Is this compatible with using ubifs ?
> - Implement new ecc scheme in x-loader and u-boot, and use hardware
> assisted bch-4 in the kernel.
> Is this correct ?
* use 1-bit hamming 'ROM-layout' for SPL mtd and 4-bit BCH8 in all
other sections, see my u-boot patches.
Would be great to have some testers for these patches.
Best regards
Andreas Bießmann
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-10 10:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-07 15:26 U-boot bch4_sw vs omap bch4_hw jean-philippe francois
2012-12-08 8:29 ` Ivan Djelic
2012-12-10 9:41 ` jean-philippe francois
2012-12-10 10:35 ` Andreas Bießmann [this message]
2012-12-10 11:11 ` Andreas Bießmann
2012-12-13 14:35 ` Ivan Djelic
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50C5BAD6.2010500@corscience.de \
--to=andreas.biessmann@corscience.de \
--cc=ivan.djelic@parrot.com \
--cc=jp.francois@cynove.com \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox