From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: vigneshr@ti.com (Vignesh R)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:51:08 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v5 3/5] mtd: devices: m25p80: add support for mmap read
 request
In-Reply-To: <56C49B9E.8060506@ti.com>
References: <1449807000-6457-1-git-send-email-vigneshr@ti.com>
 <1449807000-6457-4-git-send-email-vigneshr@ti.com>
 <20160209193616.GN13270@sirena.org.uk> <56BC1D3E.5020203@ti.com>
 <20160212223711.GD18988@sirena.org.uk> <56C2D731.6050306@ti.com>
 <20160216123854.GJ18327@sirena.org.uk> <56C49B9E.8060506@ti.com>
Message-ID: <56CDA034.7050607@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 02/17/2016 09:41 PM, R, Vignesh wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/16/2016 06:08 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 01:30:49PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
>>> On 02/13/2016 04:07 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:03:50AM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
>>>>> On 02/10/2016 01:06 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
> 
> Yeah, but AFAIK, hardware accelerated read support is applicable for
> m25p80 flashes only, I doubt whether spi_flash_read() will be used by
> other types. I felt keeping the software implementation in m25p80_read()
> will be consistent with m25p80_write().

Is there any further work required on the patch? If not, what's the plan
to merge this patch?

-- 
Regards
Vignesh