[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1TU6TNVrgffQgub@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2022 08:45:13 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To: Mauro Lima <mauro.lima@...ypsium.com>
Cc: broonie@...nel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] spi: intel-spi: Move software sequencing logic
outside the core
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 01:45:07PM -0300, Mauro Lima wrote:
> +#include "spi-intel.h"
> +#include "spi-intel-common.h"
> +#include "spi-intel-swseq.h"
Do we really need all these headers? Why not just "spi-intel.h"?
> +
> +bool mem_op_supported_on_spi_locked(const struct intel_spi *ispi,
> + const struct spi_mem_op *op)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + /* Check if it is in the locked opcodes list */
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ispi->opcodes); i++) {
> + if (ispi->opcodes[i] == op->cmd.opcode)
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + dev_dbg(ispi->dev, "%#x not supported\n", op->cmd.opcode);
> + return false;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(mem_op_supported_on_spi_locked);
You need to namespace all these symbols with intel_spi_ or so (and use
_GPL version of EXPORT_SYMBOL()).
However, I don't think we even need all these to be exported in the
first place. It has been quite a while we discussed about this so I
might be forgetting something but IIRC I did not suggest the split this
way? ;-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists