On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:50:05 +0200 Miquel Raynal <miquel.ray...@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.
