From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Brezillon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] mtd: rawnand: add Reed-Solomon error correction algorithm Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 15:43:26 +0200 Message-ID: <20180601154326.6c60c579@bbrezillon> References: <20180531221637.6017-1-stefan@agner.ch> <20180531221637.6017-2-stefan@agner.ch> <20180601092600.03c14f53@bbrezillon> <20180601112506.2157e8b0@bbrezillon> <18ce3100aabf42059dbd514fb8c93e84@agner.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <18ce3100aabf42059dbd514fb8c93e84@agner.ch> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stefan Agner Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, pgaikwad@nvidia.com, dev@lynxeye.de, mirza.krak@gmail.com, benjamin.lindqvist@endian.se, pdeschrijver@nvidia.com, miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, jonathanh@nvidia.com, marek.vasut@gmail.com, thierry.reding@gmail.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, krzk@kernel.org, richard@nod.at, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, digetx@gmail.com, computersforpeace@gmail.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, marcel@ziswiler.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 15:34:33 +0200 Stefan Agner wrote: > On 01.06.2018 11:25, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 09:26:00 +0200 > > Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 00:16:32 +0200 > >> Stefan Agner wrote: > >> > >> > Add Reed-Solomon (RS) to the enumeration of ECC algorithms. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon > >> > >> > --- > >> > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand_base.c | 1 + > >> > include/linux/mtd/rawnand.h | 1 + > > > > Hm, you forgot to update Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/nand.txt. > > > > Yeah I was not sure about that. Currently it says: > > - nand-ecc-algo: string, algorithm of NAND ECC. > > Supported values are: "hamming", "bch". > > Is supported meant by software ECC here? I feel "supported" is a rather > strong word since it is clearly controller dependent whether it is > actually supported... I guess "valid values" or "accepted values" would be more appropriate here.