> In message <4ae371e7.3000...@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 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
