On Mon, 2024-10-21 at 13:02 +0000, Avri Altman wrote:
> > Reduced Duplication: Each do_ffu<x>() avoids repeating the same
> > logic.
> > Improved Maintainability: Changes only need to be made in one
> > location.
> > Clear Separation: Common operations remain consistent across all
> > modes.
> >
> >
> > The approach you suggested is to sperate them at the begigning of
> > do_ffu<x>, then pass the different parameters to each different
> > function:
> >
> > It risks unnecessary duplication and increased complexity, as seen
> > in this
> > structure:
> >
> > void do_ffu1() {
> > // Duplicate logic here
> > do_ffu_prepare(ffu1);
> > ffu_is_supported();
> > do_ffu_download(ffu_structure);
> > do_ffu_installation();
> > }
> >
> > void do_ffu2() {
> > // Duplicate logic here
> > do_ffu_prepare(ffu2);
> > ffu_is_supported();
> > do_ffu_download(ffu_structure);
> > do_ffu_installation();
> > }
> >
> > Please tell me was the second one what you expected?
> I see that you still think that the ffu_mode is better.
> I don't want to block the progress of the series - as I am aware that
> there are customers that are waiting.
> Please feel free to add my Acked-by tag to the whole series.
>
> Thanks,
> Avri
Thanks, I plan to send out the v4 patch this week and will incorporate
your inputs inline as possible as it can.
Kind regards,
Bean
