Hi Boris, Looking back at this thread, there's at least one or two things I forgot to answer. Sorry. On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:32:04PM +0200, Boris BREZILLON wrote: > On 20/05/2014 21:52, Brian Norris wrote: [...] > If the ECC bindings don't encode the "minimum required ECC strength" but > rather the "ECC config on a specific board" then I guess "minimum > required ECC strength" for non-ONFI chips should be defined somewhere > else (stored in the device ID table ?). They are. See nand_flash_dev::ecc, which holds fields for ecc_strength_ds and step_ds. If we have to, we can add a "timing mode" field to this struct. > > So you're saying that even though the chip actually specifies a single > > set of timings, you would describe this as a bitmask of several > > supported ONFI timing modes, up to the "max performance"? > > > > Is there ever a case where (for instance) a non-ONFI flash supports the > > equivalent of timing mode 3, but it does not support mode 2 or 1? > > I don't think so. OK, then I don't think the mask approach is necessary, if we do ever settle on using a DT binding here. (I hope we can avoid this.) > >> But I can modify the bindings to just encode the maximum supported > >> timing mode. > > AIUI, the non-ONFI datasheets really only specify a single timing mode, > > so I think we should only specify the "max." And as a bonus, this > > actually makes the binding easier to use. A driver does not care about > > how many different modes are supported; it only needs to know what the > > max is. > > Agreed, actually my first binding was defining it this way. Was there a good reason for changing it? Thanks, Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
