Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:39:34 +0100 | From | Boris BREZILLON <> | 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@gmail.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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |