[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52E94AE6.3020107@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:39:34 +0100
From: Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon.dev@...il.com>
To: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>
CC: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, dev@...ux-sunxi.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Pekon Gupta <pekon@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 03/14] of: mtd: add documentation for nand-ecc-level
property
Hello Ezequiel
Le 29/01/2014 18:53, Ezequiel Garcia a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 03:34:13PM +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
>> nand-ecc-level property statically defines NAND chip's ECC requirements.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON <b.brezillon.dev@...il.com>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand.txt | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand.txt
>> index 03855c8..0c962296 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand.txt
>> @@ -3,5 +3,8 @@
>> - nand-ecc-mode : String, operation mode of the NAND ecc mode.
>> Supported values are: "none", "soft", "hw", "hw_syndrome", "hw_oob_first",
>> "soft_bch".
>> +- nand-ecc-level : Two cells property defining the ECC level requirements.
>> + The first cell represent the strength and the second cell the ECC block size.
>> + E.g. : nand-ecc-level = <4 512>; /* 4 bits / 512 bytes */
>> - nand-bus-width : 8 or 16 bus width if not present 8
>> - nand-on-flash-bbt: boolean to enable on flash bbt option if not present false
> Hm.. when was this proposal agreed?
Never, this is a proposal based on my needs, and this was not present in the
1st version of this series :-).
> It seems I've missed the
> discussion...
>
> FWIW, we've already proposed an equivalent one, but it received no
> feedback from the devicetree maintainers:
>
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/58764
>
> Maybe we can discuss about it now?
>
> nand-ecc-strength : integer ECC required strength.
> nand-ecc-size : integer step size associated to the ECC strength.
>
> vs.
>
> nand-ecc-level : Two cells property defining the ECC level requirements.
> The first cell represent the strength and the second cell the ECC block size.
> E.g. : nand-ecc-level = <4 512>; /* 4 bits / 512 bytes */
>
> It's really the same proposal but with a different format, right?
Yes it is.
> IMHO, the former is more human-readable, but other than that I see no
> difference.
As I already said to Pekon, I won't complain if my proposal is not chosen,
as long as there is a proper way to define these ECC requirements ;-).
Best Regards,
Boris
>
> Brian? DT-guys?
--
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