Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 7 Aug 2021 12:28:14 +0200 | From | Miquel Raynal <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] mtd: mtdconcat: Remove concat_{read|write}_oob |
| |
Hi Zhihao,
Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com> wrote on Sat, 7 Aug 2021 10:59:32 +0800:
> 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? >
Yes please let's drop _read|write() instead.
Thanks, Miquèl
| |