[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/5] 8xxx: Add 'ecc' command
Peter Tyser
ptyser at xes-inc.com
Sat Oct 24 23:30:15 CEST 2009
Hi Wolfgang,
> In message <1256258353-25589-1-git-send-email-ptyser at xes-inc.com> you wrote:
>> Add a new 'ecc' command to interact with the 85xx and 86xx DDR ECC
>> registers. The 'ecc' command can inject data/ECC errors to simulate
>> errors and provides an 'info' subcommand which displays ECC error
>> information such as failure address, read vs expected data/ECC,
>> physical signal which failed, single-bit error count, and multiple bit
>> error occurrence. An example of the 'ecc info' command follows:
>
> We already have similar commands for other architectures, see for
> example cpu/mpc83xx/ecc.c
>
> I'm not sure if it's possible to use a common implementation, but I
> would like to ask you to check if this is possible.
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.
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?
> In any case I ask that we use a common user interface for both
> implementations. It makes no sense that the same command name behaves
> differently on different boards (even from the same vendor).
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.
Best,
Peter
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list