Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 16 Apr 2020 14:58:24 +0200 (CEST)
From:   =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Leger <cleger@kalrayinc.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-spi <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <1262823717.15763605.1587041904410.JavaMail.zimbra@kalray.eu>
In-Reply-To: <20200416124725.GI5354@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20200416110823.22565-1-cleger@kalray.eu> <20200416110916.22633-1-cleger@kalray.eu> <20200416110916.22633-2-cleger@kalray.eu> <20200416113539.GG5354@sirena.org.uk> <622416308.15749883.1587037855167.JavaMail.zimbra@kalray.eu> <20200416124725.GI5354@sirena.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] spi: dw: remove cs_control and poll_mode members
 from chip_data
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Thread-Topic: remove cs_control and poll_mode members from chip_data
Thread-Index: u6+BzXYec9ZWEUrvuKhpkEo14J92aA==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


----- On 16 Apr, 2020, at 14:47, Mark Brown broonie@kernel.org wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 01:50:55PM +0200, Clément Leger wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
> 
> Please don't top post, reply in line with needed context.  This allows
> readers to readily follow the flow of conversation and understand what
> you are talking about and also helps ensure that everything in the
> discussion is being addressed.

Sorry, I'll take care of that.

> 
>> Sorry, maybe the commit message was not clear enough but actually
>> these fields were not initialized so it does not break anything
>> (ie, the default values were always used).
> 
> When you remove the definition of the struct and declaration of the
> variable pointing to it then the code won't compile.

Yes I know and I took care of that but there is probably a misunderstanding.
There is actually two structs with the same members (dw_chip_info and
chip_data). The first one (chip_info) if it exists, is copied into the
second (chip_data). First patch [1/2] removes the part of code that did
copy these fields. And then second patchs removes the usage of chip_data
fields. Please let me know if I missed something. I tried to recompile it
and there is no build breakage.

Clément

> 
> > > This means that your first patch will break the build, to keep things