From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 15:30:32 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 5/8] nand: Merge new implementation of 1-bit ECC from Linux nand driver In-Reply-To: <4EAFA47D.6040109@aizo.com> References: <1318404726-27147-1-git-send-email-christian.hitz@aizo.com> <1318404726-27147-5-git-send-email-christian.hitz@aizo.com> <4EAB2CFF.7060606@freescale.com> <4EAE9311.8040907@aizo.com> <4EAF01E8.4040709@freescale.com> <4EAFA47D.6040109@aizo.com> Message-ID: <4EB056E8.9080101@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 11/01/2011 02:49 AM, Christian Hitz wrote: > Am 31.10.2011 21:15, schrieb Scott Wood: >> On 10/31/2011 07:22 AM, Christian Hitz wrote: >>> Am 29.10.2011 00:30, schrieb Scott Wood: >>>> On 10/12/2011 02:32 AM, Christian Hitz wrote: >>>>> [backport from linux commit 02f8c6aee8df3cdc935e9bdd4f2d020306035dbe] >>>>> >>>>> This patch synchronizes the nand driver with the Linux 3.0 state. >>>>> >>>>> Adds 1416 bytes to the image size. >>>> >>>> What does this version of the code do that warrants the code size >>>> increase? This could break some SPLs. >>>> >>>> If it's just a speed issue, we probably want to stick with the current code. >>> >>> It's the rewrite for performance and support for 512 byte pages, but this is >>> on the basis of the rewritten code. >> >> Several SPLs make use of nand_ecc.c, so NACK replacing it with a larger >> implementation. > > So, should I resubmit the patch series without this part? Not if the current patchset works with this one dropped. -Scott