Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 23 Oct 2022 08:45:13 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To:     Mauro Lima <mauro.lima@eclypsium.com>
Cc:     broonie@kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] spi: intel-spi: Move software sequencing logic
 outside the core
Message-ID: <Y1TU6TNVrgffQgub@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20221020164508.29182-1-mauro.lima@eclypsium.com>
 <20221020164508.29182-2-mauro.lima@eclypsium.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221020164508.29182-2-mauro.lima@eclypsium.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 01:45:07PM -0300, Mauro Lima wrote:
> +#include "spi-intel.h"
> +#include "spi-intel-common.h"
> +#include "spi-intel-swseq.h"

Do we really need all these headers? Why not just "spi-intel.h"?

> +
> +bool mem_op_supported_on_spi_locked(const struct intel_spi *ispi,
> +				    const struct spi_mem_op *op)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +
> +	/* Check if it is in the locked opcodes list */
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ispi->opcodes); i++) {
> +		if (ispi->opcodes[i] == op->cmd.opcode)
> +			return true;
> +	}
> +
> +	dev_dbg(ispi->dev, "%#x not supported\n", op->cmd.opcode);
> +	return false;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(mem_op_supported_on_spi_locked);

You need to namespace all these symbols with intel_spi_ or so (and use
_GPL version of EXPORT_SYMBOL()).

However, I don't think we even need all these to be exported in the
first place. It has been quite a while we discussed about this so I
might be forgetting something but IIRC I did not suggest the split this
way? ;-)