public inbox for u-boot@lists.denx.de
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] MTD: atmel_nand: support for software BCH ECC
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 14:44:01 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1378323841.12204.40.camel@snotra.buserror.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52274E82.6030300@gmail.com>

On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 17:15 +0200, Andreas Bie?mann wrote:
> Hi Bo,
> 
> On 09/04/2013 02:46 PM, Bo Shen wrote:
> > On 9/4/2013 8:30 PM, Andreas Bie?mann wrote:
> >>> >Yes, we need libbch.
> >>> >
> >>> >If we really want to enable software BCH support. It also need add
> >>> >following two options in board configuration file.
> >>> >---8>---
> >>> >#define CONFIG_NAND_ECC_BCH
> >>> >#define CONFIG_BCH
> >>> >---<8---
> >>> >
> >>> >So, this patch give us option to enable software BCH.
> >> got it. So the NAND_ECC_BCH is the adoption for the SW BCH correction in
> >> mtd layer. I understand that this would be helpful for at91 SoC without
> >> PMECC HW. But there is no user currently, so I hesitate to apply this.
> > 
> > Frankly, there is no EK boards from Atmel use software BCH now, however,
> > a lot of customers use NAND with 224 bytes OOB, can not use software
> > ECC, they need use software BCH.
> 
> I understand this. But it will be a piece of dead code until a user of
> it would be submitted.
> 
> > So, I think it is better to apply this patch. If it will break the rule
> > of u-boot, then I think we can wait real user in u-boot need this and
> > then apply this patch.
> 
> I'd like to hear Scott's comment on that.

Is this for the benefit of out-of-tree boards, or for boards which will
be submitted but haven't yet?

In the latter case, it could be submitted at the same time.  In the
former case, of course we encourage the boards to be submitted, and we
don't generally add code solely for the benefit of out-of-tree boards.  

In any case, this is minor enough that I don't care all that much.  If
we ever get kconfig, then hopefully the "dead code" rules will relax to
code which could be enabled through some legal config, rather than code
which is enabled in some default config for a board.  Things like
allyesconfig and randconfig could help with build test coverage.

-Scott

  reply	other threads:[~2013-09-04 19:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-08-28 14:54 [U-Boot] [PATCH] MTD: atmel_nand: support for software BCH ECC Bo Shen
2013-09-04 10:23 ` Andreas Bießmann
2013-09-04 12:11   ` Bo Shen
2013-09-04 12:30     ` Andreas Bießmann
2013-09-04 12:46       ` Bo Shen
2013-09-04 15:15         ` Andreas Bießmann
2013-09-04 19:44           ` Scott Wood [this message]
2013-09-05  6:28             ` Andreas Bießmann
2013-09-05 17:25               ` Scott Wood

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=1378323841.12204.40.camel@snotra.buserror.net \
    --to=scottwood@freescale.com \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /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