David Brownell wrote:
On Monday 27 April 2009, Scott Wood wrote:
It is for compatibility with a widely-deployed legacy ECC layout -- more details can be found in the list archives.
See my original query, which IMO disproves that assertion.
The entire mess was presented as being for compatibility in these threads:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2008-June/036055.html http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2008-August/039679.html
If some portions of it aren't actually needed for compatibility, then we can remove them.
Or we can remove the entire thing, if nobody cares anymore -- if anyone out there does care and is using this, please speak up now.
What this option enables differs in two ways from what the MontaVista code does. (Speaking here of the 1-bit HW ECC. The 4-bit support is another mess, which would be made far worse by needing to carry the BROKEN_ECC mode.)
I see no reason why new features would have to be supported on both sides of the ifdef.
Which is why I'm wondering what that original U-Boot code for HW ECC was trying to be "compatible" with, since it clearly wasn't MontaVista Linux ... or even the U-Boot versions I've seen be distributed with it.
MV 2.6.10 was the claim.
-Scott