On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 08:06:08AM +0000, Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com wrote:
[...]
> >  static const struct flash_info *spi_nor_read_id(struct spi_nor *nor)
> >  {
> > -       int                     tmp;
> > +       int                     tmp, i;
> 
> while cleaning this function, would you rename tmp with ret?

Good idea, I'll do that in v2.

> >         u8                      *id = nor->bouncebuf;
> 
> and please drop this tab between u8 and *id

The same with the other variables in this functions? They have tabs
between the type and the pointer star / name as well.

> 
> >         const struct flash_info *info;
> 
> Also, IMO, the definition of variables should be done with the focus of 
> avoiding stack padding. With this in mind, I would first define the pointers 
> and then the ints and smaller types. But there are others than prefer defining 
> the variables in a tree/reverse-tree way, depending of the length of the line. 
> There's no agreement on this, either way if fine, do as you prefer.

I have no preference here. I think I'll keep it as is for now.


Thanks for the review,
Jonathan Neuschäfer