From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964864AbcFMGh0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 02:37:26 -0400 Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]:48386 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964781AbcFMGhZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 02:37:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:37:22 +0200 From: Boris Brezillon To: Brian Norris Cc: Richard Weinberger , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, David Woodhouse , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mtd: introduce the mtd_pairing_scheme concept Message-ID: <20160613083722.7630afe8@bbrezillon> In-Reply-To: <20160613062229.GA115118@google.com> References: <1461578481-26567-1-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <1461578481-26567-2-git-send-email-boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> <20160611021715.GH89390@google.com> <20160611085408.74b2295f@bbrezillon> <20160613055532.GB107340@google.com> <20160613062229.GA115118@google.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 23:22:29 -0700 Brian Norris wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 10:55:32PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 08:54:08AM +0200, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:17:15 -0700 > > > Brian Norris wrote: > [...] > > > > Also, the "pair" term (and examples you use) seem to imply 2-cell MLC, > > > > whereas I believe you're trying to handle TLC too. I don't know if we > > > > should drop the "pair" term, or just explain it better. > > > > > > I clearly have some problems with the words I've chosen, but those terms > > > were extracted from NAND datasheets (group and pair), and I think > > > keeping the same wording help people converting datasheet specs into > > > pairing scheme implementation. > > > > > > Any suggestions to replace those 2 words? > > > > I'm not sure we should replace the words (esp. if those are used by > > multiple vendors). [...] > > I see that George highlighted a Micron datasheet in other parts of this > thread, and I noticed it uses the term "shared page." That explains why > I couldn't find the word "pair" in my quick search of Micron datasheets! > So I guess "shared page" would be a nomination, though I'm certainly not > forcing it, if you think pair is better. Samsung and Hynix datasheets are using the term 'paired', and Toshiba ones are not naming this concept. It's just a detail anyway, I'm fine switching to 'shared pages'. -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com