On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:30:49PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:

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

quoted

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

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

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.

quoted

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

No, not at all.  I'm talking about how we handle the case where we don't
have hardware support for this and need to implement it in software -
currently that's in a separate place to the place where we call the
driver.