[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1368602870.13665.7.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 10:27:50 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Huang Shijie <b32955@...escale.com>
Cc: dwmw2@...radead.org, computersforpeace@...il.com,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] mtd: add more comment for ecc_strength/ecc_size
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 17:08 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> Add more commit for ecc_strength and ecc_size fields.
> We can treat the comment as the initial semantics for the two fields.
>
> Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie <b32955@...escale.com>
Huang, let me drop the 3 patches I already merged. Please, re-send them
in v5. I think this is better because I see you start applying patches
on top of them, which is a bit confusing.
> * @cellinfo: [INTERN] MLC/multichip data from chip ident
> * @ecc_strength: [INTERN] ECC correctability from the datasheet.
> + * The minimum number of bits correctability, if known;
> + * if unknown, set to 0.
I find this confusing still. How about this comment.
ECC correctability from the datasheet. Minumum amount of bit errors per
@ecc_size guaranteed to be correctable). If unknown, set to zero.
> * @ecc_size: [INTERN] ECC size required by the @ecc_strength,
> - * also from the datasheet.
> + * also from the datasheet. It is the recommended ECC step
> + * size, if known; if unknown, set to 0.
Silly question, why you call this one "ecc_size", and not "ecc_step"?
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists