Hi Boris, boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:27:17 +0100: > On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 18:40:39 +0100 > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The combination of checks against the number of supported operations is > > going to increase exponentially each time we add a new parameter. So far > > we only had a dtr parameter. Now we are introducing an ECC parameter. We > > need to make this helper available for drivers with specific needs, > > instead of creating another set of helpers each time we want to check > > something new. In the future if we see that many different drivers use > > the same parameter values, we might be tempted to create a specific > > helper for that. But for now, let's just make the generic one available. > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/spi/spi-mem.c | 7 ++++--- > > include/linux/spi/spi-mem.h | 13 +++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c > > index 9e06cd918273..48b55395178f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c > > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mem.c > > @@ -160,9 +160,9 @@ static bool spi_mem_check_buswidth(struct spi_mem *mem, > > return true; > > } > > > > -static bool spi_mem_generic_supports_op(struct spi_mem *mem, > > - const struct spi_mem_op *op, > > - bool dtr, bool ecc) > > +bool spi_mem_generic_supports_op(struct spi_mem *mem, > > + const struct spi_mem_op *op, > > + bool dtr, bool ecc) > > Looks like you're replacing a maintenance burden by another. Every time > you'll add a new capability, you'll have to patch all the wrappers and > the drivers using this generic function to pass the extra parameter. > How about passing a > > struct spi_mem_controller_caps { > bool dtr; > bool ecc; > }; Oh yeah good idea, I like the structure more than the bitfield. > or making the caps a bitmask, such that next time you add a new cap, you > can just assume all drivers have it set to 0 by default. Thanks, Miquèl