From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756942Ab3EOHkD (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 May 2013 03:40:03 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:14964 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756613Ab3EOHkB (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 May 2013 03:40:01 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,675,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="337519597" Message-ID: <1368603747.13665.20.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/9] mtd: add more comment for ecc_strength/ecc_size From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Huang Shijie Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, computersforpeace@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 10:42:27 +0300 In-Reply-To: <51933B79.5000608@freescale.com> References: <1366967337-5534-1-git-send-email-b32955@freescale.com> <1366967337-5534-2-git-send-email-b32955@freescale.com> <1368602870.13665.7.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <51933B79.5000608@freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4 (3.6.4-3.fc18) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > > 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! -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy