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?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature