[PATCH v4 1/2] mtd: spinand: micron: Generalize the function and structure names

[Boris Brezillon]

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 18:21:59 +0200
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal at bootlin.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at collabora.com> wrote on Mon, 28 Sep
> 2020 18:03:43 +0200:
> 
> > On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:50:05 +0200
> > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal at 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.  
> 
> I get the point, but is the current implementation generic enough? I
> see hardcoded numbers, I have no idea if these numbers are common to
> all strength given a specific layout, or if they only match for a given
> strength?
> 
> +static int micron_4_ooblayout_ecc(struct mtd_info *mtd, int section,
> +				  struct mtd_oob_region *region)
> +{
> +	struct spinand_device *spinand = mtd_to_spinand(mtd);
> +
> +	if (section >= spinand->base.memorg.pagesize /
> +			mtd->ecc_step_size)
> +		return -ERANGE;
> +
> +	region->offset = (section * 16) + 8;
> +	region->length = 8;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> 
> If possible, I would like to avoid several successive renaming.

Right, I thought those functions were patched to be generic, but that
doesn't seem to be the case, so I guess sticking to _<strength>_ makes
sense for now.