From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05026C4338F for ; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 10:28:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFF4B6113B for ; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 10:28:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231819AbhHGK2h convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Aug 2021 06:28:37 -0400 Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.198]:37613 "EHLO relay6-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231608AbhHGK2g (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Aug 2021 06:28:36 -0400 Received: (Authenticated sender: miquel.raynal@bootlin.com) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B41F9C0004; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 10:28:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2021 12:28:14 +0200 From: Miquel Raynal To: Zhihao Cheng Cc: , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mtd: mtdconcat: Remove concat_{read|write}_oob Message-ID: <20210807122814.109ec082@xps13> In-Reply-To: <83cb21c4-0140-40d5-e0f8-7f2a7e781a5f@huawei.com> References: <20210731023243.3977104-1-chengzhihao1@huawei.com> <20210731023243.3977104-3-chengzhihao1@huawei.com> <20210806212655.16e4d03d@xps13> <83cb21c4-0140-40d5-e0f8-7f2a7e781a5f@huawei.com> Organization: Bootlin X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.7 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Zhihao, Zhihao Cheng wrote on Sat, 7 Aug 2021 10:59:32 +0800: > 在 2021/8/7 3:26, Miquel Raynal 写道: > Hi Miquel, > >> static int concat_erase(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct erase_info *instr) > >> { > >> struct mtd_concat *concat = CONCAT(mtd); > >> @@ -684,10 +580,6 @@ struct mtd_info *mtd_concat_create(struct mtd_info *subdev[], /* subdevices to c > >> subdev_master = mtd_get_master(subdev[0]); > >> if (subdev_master->_writev) > >> concat->mtd._writev = concat_writev; > >> - if (subdev_master->_read_oob) > >> - concat->mtd._read_oob = concat_read_oob; > >> - if (subdev_master->_write_oob) > >> - concat->mtd._write_oob = concat_write_oob; > > Actually I am not sure _read|write_oob() is the right callback to > > remove. > > > > Richard, what is your input on this? Shall we remove _read|write() > > instead? I don't remember the exact rationale behind these two helpers. > > Oh, I guess I made a mistake. It looks like that reserving _{read|write}_oob is a better method in my limited knowledge to nand driver. For example, nand_do_read_oob() behaves different from nand_do_read_ops(), and calling which function is decided by mtd_oob_ops.databuf. > Callback _read_oobs() can support both functions, but callback _read() don't support nand_do_read_oob(). So mtd_read_oobs() covers mtd_read()? > Is my understand right? > Yes please let's drop _read|write() instead. Thanks, Miquèl