Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Sep 2020 18:25:45 +0200 | From | Boris Brezillon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] mtd: spinand: micron: Generalize the function and structure names |
| |
On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 18:21:59 +0200 Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> Hi Boris, > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com> wrote on Mon, 28 Sep > 2020 18:03:43 +0200: > > > On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:50:05 +0200 > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > > > > > The way OOB > > > > > bytes are organized do not seem relevant to me, I think i prefer the > > > > > "_4_/_8_" naming,even if it's not very explicit. > > > > > > > > The ECC strength doesn't say anything about the scheme used for ECC > > > > bytes placement, and you might end up with 2 different schemes > > > > providing the same strength, or the same scheme used for 2 different > > > > strengths. > > > > > > So perhaps both should be present in the name? > > > > No, the point was to re-use the same functions for various strengths if > > they use the same ECC placement scheme. > > I get the point, but is the current implementation generic enough? I > see hardcoded numbers, I have no idea if these numbers are common to > all strength given a specific layout, or if they only match for a given > strength? > > +static int micron_4_ooblayout_ecc(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section, > + struct mtd_oob_region *region) > +{ > + struct spinand_device *spinand = mtd_to_spinand(mtd); > + > + if (section >= spinand->base.memorg.pagesize / > + mtd->ecc_step_size) > + return -ERANGE; > + > + region->offset = (section * 16) + 8; > + region->length = 8; > + > + return 0; > +} > > If possible, I would like to avoid several successive renaming.
Right, I thought those functions were patched to be generic, but that doesn't seem to be the case, so I guess sticking to _<strength>_ makes sense for now.
| |