[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] sf: Shrink spi_slave {}

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

On Friday, January 17, 2014 at 07:29:54 PM, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 22:42 +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> > > Anyway, I feel we're sinking deeper and deeper into this
> > > sh*t, we should instead take a step back and re-think the
> > > whole approach until we break it even more.
> > 
> > Yes - will shrink once we plan for new approach.  But I'm
> > unclear with new SPI-NOR.
> 
> Regarding this specific patch:  I assume what Marek suggested was
> to restrict the "SPI slave" information to what's specific to an
> SPI slave.  It's just not true that every SPI slave is a flash
> chip (an assumption which QSPI developers appear to fall for
> rather easily).

Heh, really ? :) Otherwise I agree with you.

btw. I honestly don't quite understand this inclination to building separate SPI 
NOR controller instead of building full-fat SPI bus controller :(

> I was about to make a similar comment, that trimming the
> identifiers so rigorously leads to code that only "initiated"
> people can read.

OK, I have to admit I am rather blunt and my rambling may sound nasty. Please 
don't take it personally ;-)

> Even those who want to learn have no chance,
> there would not be a legend of any kind (except for the commit
> message, which soon is buried and not obvious to look up).  And
> even with the legend, it's tedious to train the casual
> co-developer to those specific abbreviations, which may not even
> be in wide spread use outside of the U-Boot code base.
> 
> So I agree with Marek that we should take a deep breath, and be
> aware of the consequences before taking a specific direction (and
> having a clear direction would also be beneficial).
> 
> A more involved answer I will send to the quad SPI thread.

Thanks for expainding so and please keep me in the loop on the qspi :)

Best regards,
Marek Vasut