Please stop top-posting. On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 08:51 +0800, Liu Dave-R63238 wrote: > 83xx ECC test code is really perfect, but it is regretful that it can > not reused to 85xx/86xx right now. > I'm not sure which approach is better between Peter's and this. > Because I still have not read carefully Peter's code.
<snip> The 83xx ECC test code may have been perfect for your needs, but it was not perfect for mine:) Or most people I would think. As I mentioned before, I put an emphasis on the error reporting. Wolfgang and I discussed exactly this in v1 of the patch: http://www.mail-archive.com/u-boot@lists.denx.de/msg24216.html <quote> > 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. </quote> Best, Peter _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
