On 28 October 2015 at 11:01, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jagan,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Jagan Teki jteki@openedev.com wrote:
On 28 October 2015 at 00:50, Troy Kisky troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com wrote:
On 10/27/2015 11:37 AM, Jagan Teki wrote:
spi_flash_probe_tail code looks not in proper shape to add more functionalities. hence refactorized so-that it's more readable and hence we may extend more functionalies to it.
Thanks Bin, for the info I will move spi_flash_scan change back to 13/14 patch.
Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki jteki@openedev.com
drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c | 22 ++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c index 319b7e6..87ac33e 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/spi/sf_probe.c @@ -123,15 +123,12 @@ int spi_flash_std_erase(struct udevice *dev, u32 offset, size_t len)
int spi_flash_std_probe(struct udevice *dev) {
struct dm_spi_slave_platdata *plat = dev_get_parent_platdata(dev);
struct spi_flash *flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev); struct spi_slave *slave = dev_get_parentdata(dev);
struct spi_flash *flash; int ret;debug("%s: slave=%p, cs=%d\n", __func__, slave, plat->cs);flash = dev_get_uclass_priv(dev); flash->dev = dev;
flash->spi = slave; /* Claim spi bus */ ret = spi_claim_bus(slave);@@ -140,17 +137,26 @@ int spi_flash_std_probe(struct udevice *dev) return ret; }
ret = spi_flash_scan(slave, flash);
ret = spi_flash_scan(flash);Is this bisectable ? It doesn't look like it.
What you mean bisectable here? This commit re-factorize the code in accordance with changes introduced in v5 13/14 on dm-sf front.
We should make sure every commit can build successfully, aka bisectable via 'git bisect'. It looks like you changed the spi_flash_scan() function signature somewhere else, but not in this commit, hence the question bisectable?
Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot