lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 03/14] of: mtd: add documentation for nand-ecc-level property
On 05/02/2014 12:15, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:53:32 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> 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? It seems I've missed the
>> discussion...
>>
>> FWIW, we've already proposed an equivalent one, but it received no
>> feedback from the devicetree maintainers:
> Sorry, binding review has become a huge undertaking.
>
>> 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.
> I'm okay with either, but the above binding is indeed more readable.

That's fine by me, if everybody agrees, let's go for the
nand-ecc-strength/nand-ecc-size couple then.

I'll rebase next version of my series on Ezequiel's patch providing
these OF helpers.

Best Regards,

Boris

>
> g.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-05 15:41    [W:0.113 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site