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; >> + >> + msg.buf = buf; >> + msg.from = from; >> + msg.len = len; >> + msg.read_opcode = nor->read_opcode; >> + msg.addr_width = nor->addr_width; >> + msg.dummy_bytes = dummy; >> + /* TODO: Support other combinations */ >> + msg.opcode_nbits = SPI_NBITS_SINGLE; >> + msg.addr_nbits = SPI_NBITS_SINGLE; >> + msg.data_nbits = m25p80_rx_nbits(nor); >> + >> + ret = spi_flash_read(spi, &msg); >> + *retlen = msg.retlen; >> + return 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. [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/11/454 -- Regards Vignesh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html