[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 23:21:29 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Alban <albeu@...e.fr>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@...us.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the
nvmem API
Am 03.03.2017 um 15:11 schrieb Boris Brezillon:
>> And add a list of successfully added notifiers, along with their
>> data pointer, to the MTD device. That's simple and would also remove
>> the need for notifier to have a private list of their instances as I
>> had to do here.
>
> And then you're abusing the notifier concept. As said earlier, a
> notifier is not necessarily using the device, and thus, don't
> necessarily need private data.
> It's not only about what is the simplest solution for your use case,
> but also what other users want/need.
Yes, please don't use the mtd_notifier.
I strongly vote to embed the nvmem pointer into struct mtd_info.
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists