From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751357AbcBLWhg (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:37:36 -0500 Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk ([106.187.55.193]:48580 "EHLO mezzanine.sirena.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750857AbcBLWhe (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:37:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 22:37:11 +0000 From: Mark Brown To: Vignesh R Cc: Tony Lindgren , Brian Norris , Rob Herring , Russell King , hramrach@gmail.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20160212223711.GD18988@sirena.org.uk> References: <1449807000-6457-1-git-send-email-vigneshr@ti.com> <1449807000-6457-4-git-send-email-vigneshr@ti.com> <20160209193616.GN13270@sirena.org.uk> <56BC1D3E.5020203@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tNQTSEo8WG/FKZ8E" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56BC1D3E.5020203@ti.com> X-Cookie: Isn't this my STOP?! User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2a01:348:6:8808:fab::3 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: broonie@sirena.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] mtd: devices: m25p80: add support for mmap read request X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mezzanine.sirena.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --tNQTSEo8WG/FKZ8E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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? --tNQTSEo8WG/FKZ8E Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWvl6UAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQblMH/RvNAztMXHLsEFRW0U1bdB63 ImbcXa/jiHyGzMjlgdMzlJgYnVQ0KmX0PRVIDzbhHrIcLl0mqpNKENLU/IIgEDCw 6uOKcEGGBRYqdT0GIHvHOwlf5Pmdm79FTz7Y/qcL7KwZfWtBAjk4OR/oMHgcMJYC fGLMpR+cpgdm7i/KCEXTZiFLahkQELonVKjyAE7vjxdjt7kUwA6r67LsOrNPbuEn aYxSgu2btiJzCXWsFRTv+9i/YzbzmTiVt2EB54gDgF8yMDW5pncbEZfm/iigUMRM jBngWvjoiVHatdGFtacqwXpU/Ad4ZutSaQ6+p64UIgzacVv1pTbkNmBo8+9eebo= =L0w+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tNQTSEo8WG/FKZ8E--