On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:49:54AM +0100, Andreas Bie??mann wrote: > On 11/23/2012 04:14 PM, Andreas Bie??mann wrote: > > This RFC series implements BCH8 for OMAP3 as provided by linux kernel in > > commit > > 0e618ef0a6a33cf7ef96c2c824402088dd8ef48c. > > This series is heavily influenced by Ilyas series 'NAND support for AM33XX' > > thus could share some code. > > Any comments on that series? I would appreciate to get the BCH8 support > in for at least the tricorder board.
OK, so, some comments: - We should pull the gpmc structs out of arch-*/cpu.h and into <asm/omap_gpmc.h> which also means merging <asm/arch-am33xx/omap_gpmc.h> and <asm/arch-omap3/omap_gpmc.h> but I suspect that's easy. - In terms of 'nandecc' command, I don't like breaking existing setup/scripts, so my first thought is "nandecc hw" -> 1bit, "nandecc sw" -> sw (both just like today), "nandecc hw bch8" -> bch8 and "nandecc hw hamming" -> 1bit, which leaves room down the line for someone else to add nandecc hw bch4 -> bch4 (which is possible and I know exists in custom solutions somewhere). > > I have managed to load kernel from an ubifs written by the kernel driver, > > but is > > far away from tested thoroughly. > > We used that patchset for a while in-house and could not find obvious > issues. However we need to hack the SPL a bit to get the bigger > footprint into SRAM with 2013.01. What exactly did you do? We _should_ already be taking up all of SRAM with a few kb saved off for stack. We might be able to get away with less stack, but we'd need to check that a bit with the .su files. > > Cause my NAND device 'NAND device: Manufacturer ID: 0x2c, Chip ID: 0xbc > > (Micron > > NAND 512MiB 1,8V 16-bit)' does support 1bit ECC for first sector if erase is > > less than 1000, the rest requires 4bit ECC. Therefore the SPL needs to > > support > > BCH, the impact is about 9k for the SPL. > > So my question here is if this series would be accepted for the upcoming > release. I could work on it next week full time, so if I get a go for > this release I would do so. The RFC was well in time, so yes, I'm agreeable given the scope of the changes. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
