On 02/10/2016 01:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:39:58AM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:

quoted

+	if (spi_flash_read_supported(spi)) {
+		struct spi_flash_read_message msg;
+		int ret;
+
+		msg.buf = buf;
+		msg.from = from;
+		msg.len = len;
+		msg.read_opcode = nor->read_opcode;
+		msg.addr_width = nor->addr_width;
+		msg.dummy_bytes = dummy;
+		/* TODO: Support other combinations */
+		msg.opcode_nbits = SPI_NBITS_SINGLE;
+		msg.addr_nbits = SPI_NBITS_SINGLE;
+		msg.data_nbits = m25p80_rx_nbits(nor);
+
+		ret = spi_flash_read(spi, &msg);
+		*retlen = msg.retlen;
+		return ret;

Looking at this I can't help but think that spi_flash_read() ought to
have the stub in rather than the caller.  But given that we're pretty
much only ever expecting one user I'm not 100% sure it actually matters.

Well, my initial patch set passed long list of arguments to
spi_flash_read(), but Brian suggested to use struct[1] in order to avoid
unnecessary churn when things need changed in the API.


[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/11/454

-- 
Regards
Vignesh