[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/5] 8xxx: Add 'ecc' command

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

> In message <4AE371E7.3000209@xes-inc.com> you wrote:
>> 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.
> 
>> I see your point.  As far as a common implementation, what did you have 
>> in mind?  Are you referring to only consolidating the 83xx/85xx/86xx 
>> implementations?  I'm fine with that, but don't think you could expand 
>> the "common interface" much past them as ECC reporting/injection 
>> features vary greatly from architecture to architecture.
> 
> So far, this only affexts 8xxx, and having consistent code ther eis
> good enough for me now. We may want to check this again when other
> architectures raise their concerns and formulate their needs, but this
> is then.

Sounds good.  I'll rework and resubmit.

Best,
Peter