On 02/17/2016 09:41 PM, R, Vignesh wrote: > > > On 02/16/2016 06:08 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >> 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. >> > > Yeah, but AFAIK, hardware accelerated read support is applicable for > m25p80 flashes only, I doubt whether spi_flash_read() will be used by > other types. I felt keeping the software implementation in m25p80_read() > will be consistent with m25p80_write(). Is there any further work required on the patch? If not, what's the plan to merge this patch? -- 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
