Hello Maxime,
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:46:18 +0100
Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 01:44:47AM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > When no requirement in Device Tree is given about the ECC strength and
> > step size, the engine should fallback on the minimal working case for
> >
Hello Boris,
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:57:23 +0100
Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:44:47 +0100
> Miquel Raynal wrote:
>
> > When no requirement in Device Tree is given about the ECC strength and
> > step size, the engine should fallback on the minimal working case for
> > this eng
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 01:44:47 +0100
Miquel Raynal wrote:
> When no requirement in Device Tree is given about the ECC strength and
> step size, the engine should fallback on the minimal working case for
> this engine (16b/1024B) instead of the NAND chip requirement which might
> be simply unreachab
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 01:44:47AM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> When no requirement in Device Tree is given about the ECC strength and
> step size, the engine should fallback on the minimal working case for
> this engine (16b/1024B) instead of the NAND chip requirement which might
> be simply
When no requirement in Device Tree is given about the ECC strength and
step size, the engine should fallback on the minimal working case for
this engine (16b/1024B) instead of the NAND chip requirement which might
be simply unreachable.
Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal
---
drivers/mtd/nand/sunxi_nan
5 matches
Mail list logo