Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1756576AbcK3HvP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 30 Nov 2016 02:51:15 -0500
Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([62.4.15.54]:46183 "EHLO
        mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751382AbcK3HvI (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 30 Nov 2016 02:51:08 -0500
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:51:01 +0100
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@atmel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/39] mtd: nand: denali: support HW_ECC_FIXUP
 capability
Message-ID: <20161130085101.483520ae@bbrezillon>
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNASsn8esF6UsCmc-Pv+ED_ukvtMO7nOWLs+u6H0UgcsHTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1480183585-592-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
        <1480183585-592-18-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
        <20161127170907.002e6ab4@bbrezillon>
        <CAK7LNASsn8esF6UsCmc-Pv+ED_ukvtMO7nOWLs+u6H0UgcsHTw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1567
Lines: 48

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:20:10 +0900
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,
> 
> 
> 2016-11-28 1:09 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com>:
>                                         &max_bitflips);
> >
> > Okay, so you currently have two ways of handling ECC errors. What if a
> > new revision introduces yet another way to do it?
> >
> > How about making denali_caps a structure where you have one (or several)
> > function pointers to implement operations differently depending on the
> > IP revision?
> >
> > struct denali_caps {
> >         u32 feature_flags; /* If needed. */
> >         bool (*handle_ecc)(...);
> >         ...
> > };
> >  
> 
> I think a problem is the difference of function arguments:
> 
> static bool denali_hw_ecc_fixup(struct denali_nand_info *denali,
>                                 unsigned int *max_bitflips)
> 
>      vs
> 
> static bool denali_sw_ecc_fixup(struct denali_nand_info *denali, u8 *buf,
>                                 u32 irq_status, unsigned int *max_bitflips)
> 
> 
> I do not want to pass redundant arguments,
> which are used for one, but not used for the other.
> 

We do that all the time when defining generic interfaces.

> 
> We do not need to think about the situation that may not happen.
> If happens, we can refactor the code any time.
> 

Well, as I said in my other reply, I still think it's better to plan
for this now, rather than having to change a lot things when we appear
to need this. But that's only my POV, and I don't care enough to fight.