From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Tyser Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:43:09 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/5] 8xxx: Add 'ecc' command In-Reply-To: <20091024213711.71204185D4AA@gemini.denx.de> References: <1256258353-25589-1-git-send-email-ptyser@xes-inc.com> <20091024172110.D07EF185D4A5@gemini.denx.de> <4AE371E7.3000209@xes-inc.com> <20091024213711.71204185D4AA@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <4AE374ED.6030309@xes-inc.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > 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