Hi Brian, On 11/12/2015 12:54 AM, Brian Norris wrote: > In addition to my other comments: > [...] >> + int (*spi_mtd_mmap_read)(struct spi_device *spi, >> + loff_t from, size_t len, >> + size_t *retlen, u_char *buf, >> + u8 read_opcode, u8 addr_width, >> + u8 dummy_bytes); > > This is seeming to be a longer and longer list of arguments. I know MTD > has a bad habit of long argument lists (which then cause a ton of > unnecessary churn when things need changed in the API), but perhaps we > can limit the damage to the SPI layer. Perhaps this deserves a struct to > encapsulate all the flash read arguments? Like: > > struct spi_flash_read_message { > loff_t from; > size_t len; > size_t *retlen; > void *buf; > u8 read_opcode; > u8 addr_width; > u8 dummy_bits; > // additional fields to describe rx_nbits for opcode/addr/data > }; > > struct spi_master { > ... > int (*spi_flash_read)(struct spi_device *spi, > struct spi_flash_message *msg); > }; Yeah.. I think struct encapsulation helps, this can also be used to pass sg lists for dma in future. I will rework the series with your suggestion to include nbits for opcode/addr/data. Also, will add validation logic (similar to __spi_validate()) to check whether master supports dual/quad mode for opcode/addr/data. I am planning to add this validation code to spi_flash_read_validate(in place of spi_mmap_read_supported()) Thanks! -- Regards Vignesh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html