On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:59:58PM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote: > Hi David & Mark & Brian: > > thanks for your review and comments. > >... so why don't you just add a DT property to actually specify the ECC > >selection itself, rather than indirectly specifying it through a vague > Do you mean i should add a DT property like "fsl, gpmi-use-new-ecclayout" ? > > I am not understand "the ECC selection itself". Sorry if that was unclear. I was recommending that the DT property actually specify what the properties of the ECC layout were. Like ECC strength (as an integer). Or spare area/step size/whatever else needed to specify what these legacy and new layouts actually are. Your binding was too vague; it wasn't describing what the layout is. David seemed to suggest that something like your current binding might be OK. (I still thing it was too vague, but if you can describe it better, it may be sufficient.) A possible starting point: "fsl,use-minimum-ecc". Does this properly reflect your intention of using the datasheet's minimum required ECC (from ONFI or from the driver's full ID table)? But all that beside, I think your first priority is to fix the regression for the current release cycle. I'm not keen on trying to agree on a good DT binding and get it merged immediately. Can you resend in two patches? The first one will default to using legacy_set_geometry() to retain the old behavior and prevent regressions. The second one can add a DT binding to re-introduce support for your new layout. That way we can take the first one with no question, and the second one can be taken when it's ready: either for 3.12 or 3.13. Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
