On 02/13/2016 04:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:03:50AM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:

quoted

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

quoted

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

quoted

quoted

quoted

+	if (spi_flash_read_supported(spi)) {
+		struct spi_flash_read_message msg;
+		int ret;

quoted

quoted

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.

quoted

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.

I don't see what that has to do with my point?

AFAIU, your previous comment was to move initialization of
spi_flash_read_message struct to spi_flash_read(). This would mean
sending long list of arguments to spi_flash_read() which needs to be
updated whenever an argument needs to be added/deleted (in future).
Instead passing around a struct would be much easier in case of
adding/removing parameters.
Please correct me if I misunderstood your comment?

-- 
Regards
Vignesh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html