[U-Boot] [PATCH] MTD: atmel_nand: support for software BCH ECC

[Scott Wood]

On Thu, 2013-09-05 at 08:28 +0200, Andreas Bießmann wrote:
> Dear Scott Wood,
> 
> On 04.09.13 21:44, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-09-04 at 17:15 +0200, Andreas Bießmann wrote:
> >> On 09/04/2013 02:46 PM, Bo Shen wrote:
> >>> On 9/4/2013 8:30 PM, Andreas Bießmann wrote:
> >>>>>> Yes, we need libbch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we really want to enable software BCH support. It also need add
> >>>>>> following two options in board configuration file.
> >>>>>> ---8>---
> >>>>>> #define CONFIG_NAND_ECC_BCH
> >>>>>> #define CONFIG_BCH
> >>>>>> ---<8---
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, this patch give us option to enable software BCH.
> >>>> got it. So the NAND_ECC_BCH is the adoption for the SW BCH correction in
> >>>> mtd layer. I understand that this would be helpful for at91 SoC without
> >>>> PMECC HW. But there is no user currently, so I hesitate to apply this.
> >>>
> >>> Frankly, there is no EK boards from Atmel use software BCH now, however,
> >>> a lot of customers use NAND with 224 bytes OOB, can not use software
> >>> ECC, they need use software BCH.
> >>
> >> I understand this. But it will be a piece of dead code until a user of
> >> it would be submitted.
> >>
> >>> So, I think it is better to apply this patch. If it will break the rule
> >>> of u-boot, then I think we can wait real user in u-boot need this and
> >>> then apply this patch.
> >>
> >> I'd like to hear Scott's comment on that.
> > 
> > Is this for the benefit of out-of-tree boards, or for boards which will
> > be submitted but haven't yet?
> > 
> > In the latter case, it could be submitted at the same time.  In the
> > former case, of course we encourage the boards to be submitted, and we
> > don't generally add code solely for the benefit of out-of-tree boards.  
> > 
> > In any case, this is minor enough that I don't care all that much.  If
> > we ever get kconfig, then hopefully the "dead code" rules will relax to
> > code which could be enabled through some legal config, rather than code
> > which is enabled in some default config for a board.  Things like
> > allyesconfig and randconfig could help with build test coverage.
> 
> I think this is a 'yes we take it'. Scott, would you pull it in or
> should I do? Is it even that minor to pull it into 2013.10? It was
> posted weeks after merge window closed.

I can take it, but not for 2013.10.  It's not a bugfix.

-Scott