On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:30:49PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
> On 02/13/2016 04:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:03:50AM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
> >> On 02/10/2016 01:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> >>> 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?

> AFAIU, your previous comment was to move initialization of
> spi_flash_read_message struct to spi_flash_read(). This would mean

No, not at all.  I'm talking about how we handle the case where we don't
have hardware support for this and need to implement it in software -
currently that's in a separate place to the place where we call the
driver.