Hi, On 10/7/23 00:08, Sam Protsenko wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 4:00 AM Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> exynos_usi_set_sw_conf() has a single caller, exynos_usi_configure, >> which called it with exynos_usi_set_sw_conf(usi, usi->mode). Since the >> mode is already defined in struct exynos_usi, remove the superfluous >> pass of the mode parameter. While in exynos_usi_set_sw_conf(), remove the >> reinitialization of usi->mode with its same value. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- > > This driver was designed with the easiness of its further possible > extension in mind. For example, passing the "mode" into > exynos_usi_set_sw_conf() allows one to implement some sysfs nodes for > switching USI configuration manually, just by passing the user's mode > into exynos_usi_set_sw_conf(). Other things which might also appear as > over-engineered, make it easy to add USI_V1 implementation, as we > discussed that possibility at the time. So yeah, it was done for a > reason, and I'd prefer to leave it as is. > Fine by me, thanks for the explanation. Cheers, ta
