From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] U-Boot and CONFIG_SYS_DAVINCI_BROKEN_ECC
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:11:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49F61154.1060908@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200904271246.38626.david-b@pacbell.net>
David Brownell wrote:
> On Monday 27 April 2009, Scott Wood wrote:
>> It is for compatibility with a widely-deployed legacy ECC layout -- more
>> details can be found in the list archives.
>
> See my original query, which IMO disproves that assertion.
The entire mess was presented as being for compatibility in these threads:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2008-June/036055.html
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2008-August/039679.html
If some portions of it aren't actually needed for compatibility, then we
can remove them.
Or we can remove the entire thing, if nobody cares anymore -- if anyone
out there does care and is using this, please speak up now.
> What this option enables differs in two ways from what the
> MontaVista code does. (Speaking here of the 1-bit HW ECC.
> The 4-bit support is another mess, which would be made far
> worse by needing to carry the BROKEN_ECC mode.)
I see no reason why new features would have to be supported on both
sides of the ifdef.
> Which is why I'm wondering what that original U-Boot code
> for HW ECC was trying to be "compatible" with, since it
> clearly wasn't MontaVista Linux ... or even the U-Boot
> versions I've seen be distributed with it.
MV 2.6.10 was the claim.
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-27 20:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-26 18:11 [U-Boot] U-Boot and CONFIG_SYS_DAVINCI_BROKEN_ECC David Brownell
2009-04-26 22:40 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2009-04-26 22:51 ` Wolfgang Denk
2009-04-26 22:57 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2009-04-26 23:56 ` David Brownell
2009-04-27 2:08 ` Hugo Villeneuve
2009-04-27 18:56 ` Scott Wood
2009-04-27 19:46 ` David Brownell
2009-04-27 20:11 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2009-04-27 21:16 ` David Brownell
2009-05-04 0:39 ` Stephen Irons
2009-05-04 2:44 ` David Brownell
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=49F61154.1060908@freescale.com \
--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