Looking at the Linux nand_ecc, there is something specific for512 bytes size ecc:
if (eccsize_mult == 2 && (i & 0x4) == 0)
rp16 ^= tmppar;
code[2] =
+ (invparity[par & 0xf0] << 7) |
+ (invparity[par & 0x0f] << 6) |
+ (invparity[par & 0xcc] << 5) |
+ (invparity[par & 0x33] << 4) |
+ (invparity[par & 0xaa] << 3) |
+ (invparity[par & 0x55] << 2) |
+ (invparity[rp17] << 1) |
+ (invparity[rp16] << 0);
In barebox we have:
ecc_code[2] = ((~reg1) << 2) | 0x03;
So I guess there is a small change to do to support 512 bytes.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barbier, Renaud
> Sent: 18 October 2019 15:37
> To: Barbier, Renaud <renaud.barbier@xxxxxxxxx>; Sascha Hauer
> <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: barebox 2019.07 ubiformat
>
> Back from holidays
>
> I have not been able to repeat the issue on the upstream DA923RC. It is now
> booting after ubiformatting using v2019.07.
>
> Looking back in my commit history I found that in 2016.03 I replaced the
> barebox nand_ecc by the Linux nand_ecc file to work around this issue on
> ourP1014 platforms.
>
> While debugging using the barebox nand_ecc, I applied patched found in U-
> boot. This did not solve the problem.
> Our NAND uses 512 bytes for ecc size. The barebox eccsize is hard-coded to
> 256. Even setting to 512 did not help.
>
> Should the nand_calculate_ecc algorithm be different for a 512 bytes size?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: barebox [mailto:barebox-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > Barbier, Renaud
> > Sent: 27 September 2019 09:44
> > To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: barebox 2019.07 ubiformat
> >
> >
> >
> > [**EXTERNAL SOURCE**]:Please verify the source before clicking link or
> > opening attachment.
> >
> > > Not all blocks seem to be unreadable. Have you looked into subpage
> > > reads? subpage reads have been enabled in 18ea738 ("mtd: nand: Enable
> > > subpage reads"), but on the other hand that commit is already included
> > > in 2016.07. Anyway, maybe the old barebox doesn't do subpage reads for
> > > some reason.
> > > What ECC are you using, software or hardware? Is it still the same in
> > > the new barebox or are you maybe ending up with some other ECC
> scheme?
> > [Barbier, Renaud]
> > The PPC platforms uses software ECC. I will compare with our ARM platforms
> > that uses hardware ECC.
> > Thanks for the information. Answer hopefully in two weeks as I am going in
> > holidays
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Renaud
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > barebox mailing list
> > barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
