[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <OS0PR01MB5922F173C180E49273BEECB186919@OS0PR01MB5922.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2022 09:52:48 +0000
From: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>
To: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"miquel.raynal@...tlin.com" <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
"p.yadav@...com" <p.yadav@...com>,
"richard@....at" <richard@....at>,
"tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com" <tudor.ambarus@...rochip.com>,
"vigneshr@...com" <vigneshr@...com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 5/6] mtd: spi-nor: add generic flash driver
Hi Michael Walle,
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] mtd: spi-nor: add generic flash driver
>
> Hi,
>
> >> +
> >> + /* Fallback to a generic flash described only by its SFDP data. */
> >> + if (!info) {
> >> + ret = spi_nor_check_sfdp_signature(nor);
> >> + if (!ret)
> >> + info = &spi_nor_generic_flash;
> >> + }
> >
> > May be this can be combined as
> >
> > if (!info && (!spi_nor_check_sfdp_signature(nor)))
> > info = &spi_nor_generic_flash;
>
> While this is the behavior, I don't like (1) calling functions in the
> condition and (2) rely on the && and || semantics, i.e.
> to just call the second part if the first is true/false.
OK fine. I recently got a review comment from mainline for optimizing the number
of lines. That is the reason for suggestion.
Cheers,
biju
Powered by blists - more mailing lists