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 ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/