Re: [PATCH 1/4] mtd: introduce the mtd_pairing_scheme concept

[Boris Brezillon]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 23:22:29 -0700
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> 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