[U-Boot] "CONFIG_MTD_ECC_SOFT not enabled" breakage/change

[U-Boot] "CONFIG_MTD_ECC_SOFT not enabled" breakage/change

[David Purdy]

While finishing some work on support for a new machine, a build based
on the latest git, I see this:
...........................
U-Boot 2011.12-00374-g54e9668-dirty (Mar 02 2012 - 14:48:48)
Pogoplug E02

SoC:   Kirkwood 88F6281_A0
DRAM:  256 MiB
WARNING: Caches not enabled
NAND:  CONFIG_MTD_ECC_SOFT not enabled
0 MiB
`````````````````````````````

which is very reminiscent of what Thomas Weber mentions here:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-February/117926.html

Is it now considered standard and expected practice to enable
CONFIG_MTD_ECC_SOFT  in the machine config ?

Or is this a fluke/bug/commit error that is awaiting a fix?

thanks,

davy

[U-Boot] "CONFIG_MTD_ECC_SOFT not enabled" breakage/change

[Scott Wood]

On 03/02/2012 03:08 PM, David Purdy wrote:
> While finishing some work on support for a new machine, a build based
> on the latest git, I see this:
> ...........................
> U-Boot 2011.12-00374-g54e9668-dirty (Mar 02 2012 - 14:48:48)
> Pogoplug E02
> 
> SoC:   Kirkwood 88F6281_A0
> DRAM:  256 MiB
> WARNING: Caches not enabled
> NAND:  CONFIG_MTD_ECC_SOFT not enabled
> 0 MiB
> `````````````````````````````
> 
> which is very reminiscent of what Thomas Weber mentions here:
> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-February/117926.html
> 
> Is it now considered standard and expected practice to enable
> CONFIG_MTD_ECC_SOFT  in the machine config ?
> 
> Or is this a fluke/bug/commit error that is awaiting a fix?

It was a patch applied by mistake despite changes requested.

It's been fixed by:

> commit 1f7b1743d389fec616e9021012a03847f490cd18
> Author: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
> Date:   Mon Feb 13 15:46:27 2012 -0600
> 
>     Revert "nand: make 1-bit software ECC configurable"
>     
>     This reverts commit 4fee6c2f295f932b8febdc7ce8731ba045695fa5.
>     
>     It breaks boards that currently rely on soft-ecc, as pointed out here:
>     http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/140872/
>     
>     The reverted patch should be resubmitted with documentation, and with the
>     CONFIG_MTD_ECC_SOFT selected from every board that needs it.  We could
>     start by looking at what NAND driver the board selects, and whether
>     that driver ever asks for soft ECC.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>

-Scott