| Message ID | 1366967337-5534-2-git-send-email-b32955@freescale.com |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 17:08 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: > Add more commit for ecc_strength and ecc_size fields. > We can treat the comment as the initial semantics for the two fields. > > Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie <b32955@freescale.com> Huang, let me drop the 3 patches I already merged. Please, re-send them in v5. I think this is better because I see you start applying patches on top of them, which is a bit confusing. > * @cellinfo: [INTERN] MLC/multichip data from chip ident > * @ecc_strength: [INTERN] ECC correctability from the datasheet. > + * The minimum number of bits correctability, if known; > + * if unknown, set to 0. I find this confusing still. How about this comment. ECC correctability from the datasheet. Minumum amount of bit errors per @ecc_size guaranteed to be correctable). If unknown, set to zero. > * @ecc_size: [INTERN] ECC size required by the @ecc_strength, > - * also from the datasheet. > + * also from the datasheet. It is the recommended ECC step > + * size, if known; if unknown, set to 0. Silly question, why you call this one "ecc_size", and not "ecc_step"?
于 2013年05月15日 15:27, Artem Bityutskiy 写道: > On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 17:08 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: >> Add more commit for ecc_strength and ecc_size fields. >> We can treat the comment as the initial semantics for the two fields. >> >> Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie<b32955@freescale.com> > Huang, let me drop the 3 patches I already merged. Please, re-send them > in v5. I think this is better because I see you start applying patches > on top of them, which is a bit confusing. > Ok, Please drop the 3 patches. >> * @cellinfo: [INTERN] MLC/multichip data from chip ident >> * @ecc_strength: [INTERN] ECC correctability from the datasheet. >> + * The minimum number of bits correctability, if known; >> + * if unknown, set to 0. > I find this confusing still. How about this comment. > > ECC correctability from the datasheet. Minumum amount of bit errors per > @ecc_size guaranteed to be correctable). If unknown, set to zero. > > it's okay to me. >> * @ecc_size: [INTERN] ECC size required by the @ecc_strength, >> - * also from the datasheet. >> + * also from the datasheet. It is the recommended ECC step >> + * size, if known; if unknown, set to 0. > Silly question, why you call this one "ecc_size", and not "ecc_step"? > In nand_ecc_ctrl{}, the ecc step is named to @size. Personally, i perfer to ecc_step. thanks Huang Shijie
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 15:38 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: > 于 2013年05月15日 15:27, Artem Bityutskiy 写道: > > On Fri, 2013-04-26 at 17:08 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: > >> Add more commit for ecc_strength and ecc_size fields. > >> We can treat the comment as the initial semantics for the two fields. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie<b32955@freescale.com> > > Huang, let me drop the 3 patches I already merged. Please, re-send them > > in v5. I think this is better because I see you start applying patches > > on top of them, which is a bit confusing. > > > Ok, Please drop the 3 patches. > > >> * @cellinfo: [INTERN] MLC/multichip data from chip ident > >> * @ecc_strength: [INTERN] ECC correctability from the datasheet. > >> + * The minimum number of bits correctability, if known; > >> + * if unknown, set to 0. > > I find this confusing still. How about this comment. > > > > ECC correctability from the datasheet. Minumum amount of bit errors per > > @ecc_size guaranteed to be correctable). If unknown, set to zero. > > > > > it's okay to me. > >> * @ecc_size: [INTERN] ECC size required by the @ecc_strength, > >> - * also from the datasheet. > >> + * also from the datasheet. It is the recommended ECC step > >> + * size, if known; if unknown, set to 0. > > Silly question, why you call this one "ecc_size", and not "ecc_step"? > > > In nand_ecc_ctrl{}, the ecc step is named to @size. > > Personally, i perfer to ecc_step. You could harmonize the naming. Rename all the names to ecc_step, which is a lot easier to understand. You did not send v4 thus far, is this because you are busy or you did not have any requests to address? Thanks!
于 2013年05月15日 15:42, Artem Bityutskiy 写道: > You did not send v4 thus far, is this because you are busy or you did > not have any requests to address? > I am not busy. I just thought the v4 is enough. but now i will send out the v5. thanks Huang Shijie
On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 16:02 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: > 于 2013年05月15日 15:42, Artem Bityutskiy 写道: > > You did not send v4 thus far, is this because you are busy or you did > > not have any requests to address? > > > I am not busy. > I just thought the v4 is enough. > > but now i will send out the v5. To me it looked like Brian is not really satisfied with v4.
diff --git a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h index 5458021..a0c486b 100644 --- a/include/linux/mtd/nand.h +++ b/include/linux/mtd/nand.h @@ -435,8 +435,11 @@ struct nand_buffers { * not bad when badblockbits == 7 * @cellinfo: [INTERN] MLC/multichip data from chip ident * @ecc_strength: [INTERN] ECC correctability from the datasheet. + * The minimum number of bits correctability, if known; + * if unknown, set to 0. * @ecc_size: [INTERN] ECC size required by the @ecc_strength, - * also from the datasheet. + * also from the datasheet. It is the recommended ECC step + * size, if known; if unknown, set to 0. * @numchips: [INTERN] number of physical chips * @chipsize: [INTERN] the size of one chip for multichip arrays * @pagemask: [INTERN] page number mask = number of (pages / chip) - 1
Add more commit for ecc_strength and ecc_size fields. We can treat the comment as the initial semantics for the two fields. Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie <b32955@freescale.com> --- include/linux/mtd/nand.h | 5 ++++- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)