From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com (Ezequiel Garcia) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 11:19:18 -0300 Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 03/14] of: mtd: add documentation for nand-ecc-level property In-Reply-To: <52F23DF4.7010901@gmail.com> References: <1391006064-28890-1-git-send-email-b.brezillon.dev@gmail.com> <1391006064-28890-4-git-send-email-b.brezillon.dev@gmail.com> <20140129175331.GA27143@localhost> <20140205111500.B19FDC40A89@trevor.secretlab.ca> <52F23DF4.7010901@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140205141917.GA25091@localhost> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Grant, Boris: (BTW, dropped Russell, Rob Landley and some unrelated mailing lists from Cc, and added Thomas, Gregory and Rob Herring). On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Boris BREZILLON wrote: > On 05/02/2014 12:15, Grant Likely wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:53:32 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: [..] > >> > >> Maybe we can discuss about it now? > >> > >> nand-ecc-strength : integer ECC required strength. > >> nand-ecc-size : integer step size associated to the ECC strength. > > I'm okay with either, but the above binding is indeed more readable. > > That's fine by me, if everybody agrees, let's go for the > nand-ecc-strength/nand-ecc-size couple then. > Great. So, if some DT dictator^C^Cmaintainers can Ack this binding, I can send a new patchset, with pxa3xx-nand using it... > I'll rebase next version of my series on Ezequiel's patch providing > these OF helpers. > ... and then you can base on it? This is the original patchset: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/58764 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/58763 -- Ezequiel Garc?a, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering http://free-electrons.com