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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 11:28:53 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org>
To:     Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
Cc:     tkuw584924@gmail.com, takahiro.kuwano@infineon.com,
        pratyush@kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bacem.daassi@infineon.com,
        miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, richard@nod.at,
        Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: spi-nor: rename method for enabling or disabling
 octal DTR
In-Reply-To: <20230714150757.15372-1-tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
References: <20230616050600.8793-1-Takahiro.Kuwano@infineon.com>
 <20230714150757.15372-1-tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <b85368d2e3bf829809344406247193ea@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Btw. this was threaded within another thread. At least on the
netdev (and spi) ML this is discouraged.

Am 2023-07-14 17:07, schrieb Tudor Ambarus:
> Having an *_enable(..., bool enable) definition was misleading
> as the method is used both to enable and to disable the octal DTR
> mode. Splitting the method in the core in two, one to enable and
> another to disable the octal DTR mode does not make sense as the
> method is straight forward and we'd introduce code duplication.
> 
> Update the core to use:
> int (*set_octal_dtr)(struct spi_nor *nor, bool enable);
> 
> Manufacturer drivers use different sequences of commands to enable
> and disable the octal DTR mode, thus for clarity they shall
> implement it as:
> static int manufacturer_snor_set_octal_dtr(struct spi_nor *nor, bool 
> enable)
> {
> 	return enable ? manufacturer_snor_octal_dtr_enable() :
> 			manufacturer_snor_octal_dtr_disable();
> }
> 

I don't care much for this naming. I've also seen _enable() functions
which take a bool and then actually disable something in the kernel.

So I'm fine either way:

Reviewed-by: Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org>

-michael