[U-Boot] BCH8 support when we do not have ELM h/w engine.

[Enric Balletbo Serra]

Hi Pekon,

2013/12/10 Gupta, Pekon <pekon at ti.com>:
> Hi Enric,
>
> Sorry I missed your earlier mail, so din't check this..
>
>>From: Enric Balletbo Serra [mailto:eballetbo at gmail.com]
>>>
>>> I saw that the OOB layout is not the same when I flash the rootfs from
>>> the u-boot or from the kernel. For example:
>>>
>>> If the rootfs is flashed from the kernel the OOB data is like that:
>>>
>>> U-Boot # nand dump.oob 0x680000
>>> Page 00680000 dump:
>>> OOB:
>>>     ff ff 79 43 68 64 3b 80
>>>     b2 46 49 4d 58 2a 6d ff
>>>     52 3f 7d 2a 7f a2 98 70
>>>     57 32 30 35 c7 ff ff ff
>>>     ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>     ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>     ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>     ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>
>>> If the rootfs is flashed for the u-boot the OOB data is like data:
>>>
>>> Page 00680000 dump:
>>> OOB:
>>>     ff ff 79 43 68 64 3b 80
>>>     b2 46 49 4d 58 2a 6d 52
>>>     3f 7d 2a 7f a2 98 70 57
>>>     32 30 35 c7 ff ff ff ff
>>>     ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>     ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>     ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>     ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
>>>
>>> Note that look the same except after byte number 16. In the first case is
>>>     ff 52 3f 7d 2a 7f a2 98 70
>>> and in the second case is
>>>     52 3f 7d 2a 7f a2 98 70
>>>
>>> It's possible that something is wrong writting the OOB data ? Any clue
>>> ? I'm in the right direction or completely wrong ?
>>>
> Yes, there seems to be an mis-match between u-boot and kernel
> ecc-layout. Give me a day's time, and I'll try to root cause this.
> However, don't have OMAP3 boards, so I can test this only on other boards.
>
> with regards, pekon

If I can help somehow just let me know.

Thanks,
   Enric