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.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
