On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 23:22:29 -0700 Brian Norris <computersforpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 10:55:32PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 08:54:08AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:17:15 -0700 > > > Brian Norris <computersforpe...@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > > > > Also, the "pair" term (and examples you use) seem to imply 2-cell MLC, > > > > whereas I believe you're trying to handle TLC too. I don't know if we > > > > should drop the "pair" term, or just explain it better. > > > > > > I clearly have some problems with the words I've chosen, but those terms > > > were extracted from NAND datasheets (group and pair), and I think > > > keeping the same wording help people converting datasheet specs into > > > pairing scheme implementation. > > > > > > Any suggestions to replace those 2 words? > > > > I'm not sure we should replace the words (esp. if those are used by > > multiple vendors). [...] > > I see that George highlighted a Micron datasheet in other parts of this > thread, and I noticed it uses the term "shared page." That explains why > I couldn't find the word "pair" in my quick search of Micron datasheets! > So I guess "shared page" would be a nomination, though I'm certainly not > forcing it, if you think pair is better. Samsung and Hynix datasheets are using the term 'paired', and Toshiba ones are not naming this concept. It's just a detail anyway, I'm fine switching to 'shared pages'. -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
