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:
>>> 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?
>
AFAIU, your previous comment was to move initialization of
spi_flash_read_message struct to spi_flash_read(). This would mean
sending long list of arguments to spi_flash_read() which needs to be
updated whenever an argument needs to be added/deleted (in future).
Instead passing around a struct would be much easier in case of
adding/removing parameters.
Please correct me if I misunderstood your comment?
--
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
