On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:03:50AM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
> On 02/10/2016 01:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:39:58AM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:

> >> +	if (spi_flash_read_supported(spi)) {
> >> +		struct spi_flash_read_message msg;
> >> +		int ret;

> > Looking at this I can't help but think that spi_flash_read() ought to
> > have the stub in rather than the caller.  But given that we're pretty
> > much only ever expecting one user I'm not 100% sure it actually matters.

> Well, my initial patch set passed long list of arguments to
> spi_flash_read(), but Brian suggested to use struct[1] in order to avoid
> unnecessary churn when things need changed in the API.

I don't see what that has to do with my point?