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 <b32...@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"? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
