Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 27 May 2020 10:35:19 +0200: > On Wed, 27 May 2020 09:57:32 +0200 > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Maybe I misunderstood your request, you were saying that allocating a > > "best data interface object" would be good, so I interpreted it as: > > rename it, and allocated it dynamically. I'm fine keeping > > data_interface and just declaring it as a pointer. > > Correct, renaming it into best_iface_cfg is probably good, but then, > maybe we should have a current_iface_cfg, so the core/drivers always > have a pointer to the currently applied config (which after a reset > can be the reset config for a short period of time). That's why I created an indirection on chip->data_interface. nand_get_interface_cfg() is here for that -> the drivers do not care about which one is applied. I don't think we need more than I already proposed: -> there is one default reset configuration object that can be used by anyone -> there is a best configuration If the best configuration has been derived, then it will be used. Otherwise, the helper will fallback to the default slower one, and this covers all the cases :) > > > > > Anyway, I like talking about the "interface" rather than the "interface > > configuration" which is implied in my mind, I saw you were asking to > > add "configuration" sometimes, do you have something in mind that I > > don't? > > Well, to me a configuration is something that you can manipulate without > necessarily implying it's the current state the HW operates in. For a > configuration to be active, you have to apply it. And that's pretty > much what the nand_data_interface describes, a configuration, that can > be retrieved, tweaked, and finally applied. Hence the renaming I > suggest. Fine. ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/