On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 12:55 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 05:26:41PM -0600, David Lechner wrote: > > > +static int __spi_optimize_message(struct spi_device *spi, > > + struct spi_message *msg, > > + bool pre_optimized) > > +{ > > + struct spi_controller *ctlr = spi->controller; > > + int ret; > > + > > + ret = __spi_validate(spi, msg); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > + if (ctlr->optimize_message) { > > + ret = ctlr->optimize_message(msg); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + } > > + > > + msg->pre_optimized = pre_optimized; > > It would probably be clearer to name the parameter pre_optimising rather > than pre_optimized, as it is the logic is a bit confusing. Either that > or some comments. A similar issue applies on the cleanup path. Per Jonathan's suggestion, I plan to remove the parameter from this function and handle this flag at the call site instead.