From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
To: <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com>
Cc: <marek.vasut@gmail.com>, <vigneshr@ti.com>,
<miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>, <richard@nod.at>,
<linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] mtd: spi-nor: Split spi_nor_init_params()
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 14:51:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190825145141.71a647ab@collabora.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <78202b39-1c40-dbaa-3ebc-3481ecbe4643@microchip.com>
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 12:23:45 +0000
<Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com> wrote:
> On 08/25/2019 03:03 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > External E-Mail
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 12:00:43 +0000
> > <Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
> >>
> >> Add functions to delimit what the chunks of code do:
> >>
> >> static void spi_nor_init_params()
> >> {
> >> spi_nor_legacy_init_params()
> >> spi_nor_manufacturer_init_params()
> >> spi_nor_sfdp_init_params()
> >> }
> >>
> >> Add descriptions to all methods.
> >>
> >> spi_nor_init_params() becomes of type void, as all its children
> >> return void.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@microchip.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> >> index c9514dfd7d6d..93424f914159 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi-nor/spi-nor.c
> >> @@ -4186,7 +4186,34 @@ static void spi_nor_manufacturer_init_params(struct spi_nor *nor)
> >> nor->info->fixups->default_init(nor);
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static int spi_nor_init_params(struct spi_nor *nor)
> >> +/**
> >> + * spi_nor_sfdp_init_params() - Initialize the flash's parameters and settings
> >> + * based on JESD216 SFDP standard.
> >> + * @nor: pointer to a 'struct spi-nor'.
> >> + *
> >> + * The method has a roll-back mechanism: in case the SFDP parsing fails, the
> >> + * legacy flash parameters and settings will be restored.
> >> + */
> >> +static void spi_nor_sfdp_init_params(struct spi_nor *nor)
> >> +{
> >> + struct spi_nor_flash_parameter sfdp_params;
> >> +
> >> + memcpy(&sfdp_params, &nor->params, sizeof(sfdp_params));
> >> +
> >> + if (spi_nor_parse_sfdp(nor, &sfdp_params)) {
> >> + nor->addr_width = 0;
> >> + nor->flags &= ~SNOR_F_4B_OPCODES;
> >> + } else {
> >> + memcpy(&nor->params, &sfdp_params, sizeof(nor->params));
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * spi_nor_legacy_init_params() - Initialize the flash's parameters and settings
> >> + * based on nor->info data.
> >> + * @nor: pointer to a 'struct spi-nor'.
> >> + */
> >> +static void spi_nor_legacy_init_params(struct spi_nor *nor)
> >
> > Nitpick: hm, I'm not a big fan of the 'legacy' term here as I'm not sure
> > it reflects the reality. I guess this function will stay around, and
> > even new NORs are not guaranteed to provide SFDP tables. How about
> > spi_nor_set_default_params() or spi_nor_info_init_params()?
>
> I can rename it to spi_nor_info_init_params() to be in sync with
> spi_nor_manufacturer_init_params() and
> spi_nor_sfdp_init_params()
>
> or I can rename all to:
> spi_nor_set_params()
> spi_nor_set_default_params()
> spi_nor_set_manufacturer_params()
> spi_nor_set_sfdp_params()
>
> Both are ok, but the second option seems better. What would you choose?
Both sound good, pick the one you prefer.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-25 12:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-24 12:00 [PATCH v2 0/7] mtd: spi-nor: move manuf out of the core - batch 1 Tudor.Ambarus
2019-08-24 12:00 ` [PATCH v2 1/7] mtd: spi-nor: Add default_init() hook to tweak flash parameters Tudor.Ambarus
2019-08-24 12:00 ` [PATCH v2 2/7] mtd: spi-nor: Add a default_init() fixup hook for gd25q256 Tudor.Ambarus
2019-08-24 12:00 ` [PATCH v2 3/7] mtd: spi_nor: Move manufacturer quad_enable() in ->default_init() Tudor.Ambarus
2019-08-25 11:47 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-08-25 13:08 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-08-24 12:00 ` [PATCH v2 4/7] mtd: spi-nor: Split spi_nor_init_params() Tudor.Ambarus
2019-08-25 12:03 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-08-25 12:23 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-08-25 12:51 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2019-08-24 12:00 ` [PATCH v2 5/7] mtd: spi-nor: Create a ->set_4byte() method Tudor.Ambarus
2019-08-24 12:00 ` [PATCH v2 6/7] mtd: spi-nor: Rework the SPI NOR lock/unlock logic Tudor.Ambarus
2019-08-25 12:26 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-08-25 13:10 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-08-24 12:00 ` [PATCH v2 7/7] mtd: spi-nor: Rework the disabling of block write protection Tudor.Ambarus
2019-08-25 12:24 ` Boris Brezillon
2019-08-25 12:57 ` Tudor.Ambarus
2019-08-25 13:22 ` Boris Brezillon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190825145141.71a647ab@collabora.com \
--to=boris.brezillon@collabora.com \
--cc=Tudor.Ambarus@microchip.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=marek.vasut@gmail.com \
--cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®