[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200928180343.4c5302a5@collabora.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 18:03:43 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc: Thirumalesha N <nthirumalesha7@...il.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Shivamurthy Shastri <sshivamurthy@...ron.com>,
Chuanhong Guo <gch981213@...il.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] mtd: spinand: micron: Generalize the function
and structure names
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:50:05 +0200
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
> > > The way OOB
> > > bytes are organized do not seem relevant to me, I think i prefer the
> > > "_4_/_8_" naming,even if it's not very explicit.
> >
> > The ECC strength doesn't say anything about the scheme used for ECC
> > bytes placement, and you might end up with 2 different schemes
> > providing the same strength, or the same scheme used for 2 different
> > strengths.
>
> So perhaps both should be present in the name?
No, the point was to re-use the same functions for various strengths if
they use the same ECC placement scheme.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists