Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: Fix quad-enable for flashes with QER bit in SR1

[Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>]

>> -	ret = spi_nor_read_sr1_and_sr2(nor, sr);
>> +	if (qe_mask[0])
>> +		ret = spi_nor_read_sr1(nor, sr);
>> +	else
>> +		ret = spi_nor_read_sr1_and_sr2(nor, sr);
>
> Shouldn't that be the other way around?
>
> +	if (qe_mask[1])
> +		ret = spi_nor_read_sr1_and_sr2(nor, sr);
> +	else
> +		ret = spi_nor_read_sr1(nor, sr);
>
> I know qe_mask won't be spread across two SRs. Just to be
> correct and make it easier to grok.

Why is the second version easier to parse? First version is maybe more
future proof since we are treating a specific case. Because either it is
a specific chip (Mxic) or we end up in the more common case. There is
only one QER entry for qe_mask[0], many for qe_mask[1], and chances are
that in the future we will mostly see new chips only using a qe_mask[1]
mask. So having this in the else doesn't sound so strange to me? I also
don't think we will ever see masks spanning the two registers.