From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boris Brezillon Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2019 08:04:52 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 08/22] mtd: spi-nor: Rework write_enable/disable() In-Reply-To: <34fbb0d7-ee8f-a6d7-4a3e-d64f2f8555ff@microchip.com> References: <20190924074533.6618-1-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> <20190924074533.6618-9-tudor.ambarus@microchip.com> <20191010092117.4c5018a8@dhcp-172-31-174-146.wireless.concordia.ca> <34fbb0d7-ee8f-a6d7-4a3e-d64f2f8555ff@microchip.com> Message-ID: <20191024080452.522b6447@collabora.com> List-Id: To: linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 23:39:31 +0000 wrote: > On 10/10/2019 10:21 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > External E-Mail > > > > > > On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 07:46:18 +0000 > > wrote: > > > >> From: Tudor Ambarus > >> > >> static int write_enable(struct spi_nor *nor) > >> static int write_disable(struct spi_nor *nor) > >> become > >> static int spi_nor_write_enable(struct spi_nor *nor) > >> static int spi_nor_write_disable(struct spi_nor *nor) > >> > >> Check for errors after each call to them. Move them up in the > >> file as the first SPI NOR Register Operations, to avoid further > >> forward declarations. > > > > Same here, split that in 3 patches please. In order to keep the number of patch in this series small, I'd recommend doing all spi_nor_ prefixing in a patch, all function moves in another one and all error checking in a third patch, instead of splitting it per-function.