On 07/30/2019 09:04 PM, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote:
>>> + */
>>> +static int spi_nor_exec_op(struct spi_nor *nor, struct spi_mem_op *op,
>>> + u64 *addr, void *buf, size_t len)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret;
>>> + bool usebouncebuf = false;
>> I don't think we need a bounce buffer for regs. What is the maximum size
>> that we
>> read/write regs, SPI_NOR_MAX_CMD_SIZE(8)?
>>
>> In spi-nor.c the maximum length that we pass to nor->read_reg()/write_reg()
>> is
>> SPI_NOR_MAX_ID_LEN(6).
>>
>> I can provide a patch to always use nor->cmd_buf when reading/writing regs so
>> you respin the series on top of it, if you feel the same.
>>
>
>> With nor->cmd_buf this function will be reduced to the following:
>>
> I will move the code introducing bounce buffer into separate patch at
> the beginning of this series and switch over all read/write regs
> functions to use bounce buffer instead of cmd_buf. cmd_buf will be dropped.
> And then simplify this patch to spi_nor_spimem_xfer_reg() to you pointed
> out below. Does that sound good?
>
Please do. Probably we can get rid of spi_nor_spimem_xfer_reg entirely and use
spi_mem_exec_op() directly when interacting with registers. I'll wait for your
v3.
Cheers,
ta
>> static int spi_nor_spimem_xfer_reg(struct spi_nor *nor, struct spi_mem_op
>> *op)
>> {
>> if (!op || (op->data.nbytes && !nor->cmd_buf))
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> return spi_mem_exec_op(nor->spimem, op);
>> }
>>
>> spi_nor_exec_op() always received a NULL addr, let's get rid of it. We won't
>> need buf anymore and you can retrieve the length from op->data.nbytes. Now
>> that
>> we trimmed the arguments, I think I would get rid of the
>> spi_nor_data/nodata_op() wrappers and use spi_nor_spimem_xfer_reg() directly.
