Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-64128-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240212-mainline-spi-precook-message-v1-0-a2373cd72d36@baylibre.com>
 <20240212-mainline-spi-precook-message-v1-5-a2373cd72d36@baylibre.com>
 <c06dfa1ecf88b07ef467ad7c08667d0cab400613.camel@gmail.com>
 <CAMknhBEU=iMzpE_P0KePL4cZZktBOGHRXaEox5a7XcVjXDT+Dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e03968102b92b3711808eb532685bc9e05fc3c8d.camel@gmail.com> <20240213173110.00007855@Huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240213173110.00007855@Huawei.com>
From: David Lechner <dlechner@baylibre.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:59:01 -0600
Message-ID: <CAMknhBFQLvaTcFAt_LqEsDYvMDOwFo3u0xkt7fOsgL0tcmoX6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] iio: adc: ad7380: use spi_optimize_message()
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?TnVubyBTw6E=?= <noname.nuno@gmail.com>, 
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Martin Sperl <kernel@martin.sperl.org>, 
	David Jander <david@protonic.nl>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>, 
	Michael Hennerich <michael.hennerich@analog.com>, =?UTF-8?B?TnVubyBTw6E=?= <nuno.sa@analog.com>, 
	Alain Volmat <alain.volmat@foss.st.com>, Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>, 
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-iio@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:31=E2=80=AFAM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 17:08:19 +0100
> Nuno S=C3=A1 <noname.nuno@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 09:27 -0600, David Lechner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 3:47=E2=80=AFAM Nuno S=C3=A1 <noname.nuno@gma=
il.com> wrote:
> > > >

..

> > > > Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > No, your understanding is correct for the current state of everything
> > > in this series. So, we could do as you suggest, but I have a feeling
> > > that future additions to this driver might require that it gets
> > > changed back this way eventually.
> >
> > Hmm, not really sure about that as chip_info stuff is always our friend=
 :). And
> > I'm anyways of the opinion of keeping things simpler and start to evolv=
e when
> > really needed (because often we never really need to evolve). But bah, =
as I
> > said... this is really not a big deal.
> >
> Oops should have read Nuno's review before replying!
>
> I'd rather we embedded it for now and did the optimization at probe.
> Whilst it's a lot of work per transfer it's not enough to worry about del=
aying
> it until preenable().  Easy to make that move and take it dynamic when
> driver changes need it.  In meantime, I don't want lots of other drivers
> picking up this pattern when they may never need the complexity of
> making things more dynamic.
>

Noted.