On 19.08.2018 13:26, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 10:30:13 +0200
> Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/tegra_nand.c
>> > b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/tegra_nand.c
>> > index 5dcee20e2a8c..bcc3a2888c4f 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/tegra_nand.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/tegra_nand.c
>> > @@ -615,10 +615,10 @@ static int tegra_nand_page_xfer(struct mtd_info
>> > *mtd, struct nand_chip *chip,
>> > return ret;
>> > }
>> >
>> > -static int tegra_nand_read_page_raw(struct mtd_info *mtd,
>> > - struct nand_chip *chip, u8 *buf,
>> > +static int tegra_nand_read_page_raw(struct nand_chip *chip, u8 *buf,
>> > int oob_required, int page)
>> > {
>> > + struct mtd_info *mtd = nand_to_mtd(chip);
>> > void *oob_buf = oob_required ? chip->oob_poi : NULL;
>> >
>> > return tegra_nand_page_xfer(mtd, chip, buf, oob_buf,
>>
>> Since mtd is only required to pass it to tegra_nand_page_xfer, it would
>> be better to change tegra_nand_page_xfer to only take chip.
>
> For sure, but that's the sort of cleanups I'll leave to NAND controller
> driver maintainers (in this case you ;-)). I only take care of the NAND
> API here and try to make things as simple as possible to ease review and
> avoid breaking drivers.
Understand, but that change makes your patch simpler... Or did create
those patches automatically? In that case it makes sense to avoid manual
changes.
I can send a follow up patch no problem, but if you do a v2 and did the
chagnes manually anyway, I really think it can go into this patchset.
--
Stefan
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
