[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230716152405.729e0922@xps-13>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2023 15:24:05 +0200
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
Cc: Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
<oxffffaa@...il.com>, <kernel@...rdevices.ru>,
<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] support 512B ECC step size for Meson NAND
Hi Arseniy,
avkrasnov@...rdevices.ru wrote on Sat, 15 Jul 2023 20:48:34 +0300:
> Hello Miquel!
>
> On 15.07.2023 19:15, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Arseniy,
> >
> > AVKrasnov@...rdevices.ru wrote on Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:21:26 +0300:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> this patchset adds support for 512B ECC step size for Meson NAND. Current
> >> implementation only supports 1024B. There are three patches:
> >>
> >> 1) Update for device tree bindings to replace 'const' type of field
> >> 'nand-ecc-step-size' with 'enum' which contains 512 and 1024.
> >>
> >> 2) Update for device tree bindings to add dependency between properties
> >> 'nand-ecc-strength' and 'nand-ecc-step-size'.
> >>
> >> 3) Update for Meson driver - new enum value for 512B ECC and reworked
> >> ECC capabilities structure to support both 512B and 1024B ECC. By
> >> default this driver uses 1024B ECC, 512B could be enabled in device
> >> tree.
> >
> > This series does not apply correctly on nand/next, would you mind
> > rebasing (nand/next on linux-mtd) and sending it again?
>
> Sure, as I see 0001 was applied to nand/next, so I can resend only 0002 and 0003,
> as 0002 is the first patch which fails to apply?
Yes indeed.
>
> >
> > BTW the "rfc" prefix is only needed for the "first" submission, when
> > you try something "new", otherwise it is no longer required.
>
> Ok, got it
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Miquèl
>
> Thanks, Arseniy
Thanks,
Miquèl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists