Hello, boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 3 Jan 2022 09:38:19 +0100: > On Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:35:00 +0530 > Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Anyway, do you mind if we move forward first? Not that I don't think > > > that this choice should be discussed further, but I think this can > > > easily be changed in the near future if there is a desire to > > > reorganize spi-mem objects. In fact, these capabilities are accessed > > > through a helper so that hypothetic change would be almost transparent. > > > > Okay. I would still like to hear other opinions on this, but fine by me > > if you want to take this in as-is. > > I think we discussed that with Miquel, and I remember complaining about > mixing function pointers and actual data in the spi_mem_ops struct, but > honestly, it's just cosmetic concern, and I don't think it matters much > in practice. So I'm fine either way, make it a field of spi_controller > or spi_mem_ops, spi_mem is definitely not the right place though. Yeah, I don't like the idea of leaking spi-mem information into the spi controller structure, while there is a structure (so far only containing hooks) that is dedicated to spi-mem operations. Extending this structure to contain capabilities appeared the right choice to me. But on the other hand this is a controller information anyway so if you both prefer moving this data into the SPI controller structure I'll find a way to do it. Thanks, Miquèl