[PATCH V4 1/9] mtd: add more comment for ecc_strength/ecc_size

[Artem Bityutskiy]

On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 15:38 +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> 于 2013年05月15日 15:27, Artem Bityutskiy 写道:
> > 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<b32955 at 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.
> >
> Ok, Please drop the 3 patches.
> 
> >>    * @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.
> >
> >
> it's okay to me.
> >>    * @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"?
> >
> In nand_ecc_ctrl{}, the ecc step is named to @size.
> 
> Personally, i perfer to ecc_step.

You could harmonize the naming. Rename all the names to ecc_step, which
is a lot easier to understand.

You did not send v4 thus far, is this because you are busy or you did
not have any requests to address?

Thanks!

-- 
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy