[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <83cb21c4-0140-40d5-e0f8-7f2a7e781a5f@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2021 10:59:32 +0800
From: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
CC: <richard@....at>, <vigneshr@...com>, <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mtd: mtdconcat: Remove concat_{read|write}_oob
在 2021/8/7 3:26, Miquel Raynal 写道:
Hi Miquel,
>> static int concat_erase(struct mtd_info *mtd, struct erase_info *instr)
>> {
>> struct mtd_concat *concat = CONCAT(mtd);
>> @@ -684,10 +580,6 @@ struct mtd_info *mtd_concat_create(struct mtd_info *subdev[], /* subdevices to c
>> subdev_master = mtd_get_master(subdev[0]);
>> if (subdev_master->_writev)
>> concat->mtd._writev = concat_writev;
>> - if (subdev_master->_read_oob)
>> - concat->mtd._read_oob = concat_read_oob;
>> - if (subdev_master->_write_oob)
>> - concat->mtd._write_oob = concat_write_oob;
> Actually I am not sure _read|write_oob() is the right callback to
> remove.
>
> Richard, what is your input on this? Shall we remove _read|write()
> instead? I don't remember the exact rationale behind these two helpers.
Oh, I guess I made a mistake. It looks like that reserving _{read|write}_oob is a better method in my limited knowledge to nand driver. For example, nand_do_read_oob() behaves different from nand_do_read_ops(), and calling which function is decided by mtd_oob_ops.databuf.
Callback _read_oobs() can support both functions, but callback _read() don't support nand_do_read_oob(). So mtd_read_oobs() covers mtd_read()?
Is my understand right?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists