On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:55 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 05:26:41PM -0600, David Lechner wrote:
>
> > +static int __spi_optimize_message(struct spi_device *spi,
> > + struct spi_message *msg,
> > + bool pre_optimized)
> > +{
> > + struct spi_controller *ctlr = spi->controller;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = __spi_validate(spi, msg);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + if (ctlr->optimize_message) {
> > + ret = ctlr->optimize_message(msg);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > + }
> > +
> > + msg->pre_optimized = pre_optimized;
>
> It would probably be clearer to name the parameter pre_optimising rather
> than pre_optimized, as it is the logic is a bit confusing. Either that
> or some comments. A similar issue applies on the cleanup path.
Per Jonathan's suggestion, I plan to remove the parameter from this
function and handle this flag at the call site instead.
