Re: [PATCH v3 02/21] spi: dw: Add DWC SSI capability

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 8:18 PM Serge Semin
<Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 01:19:29PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 01:28:10AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > Currently DWC SSI core is supported by means of setting up the
> > > core-specific update_cr0() callback. It isn't suitable for multiple
> > > reasons. First of all having exported several methods doing the same thing
> > > but for different chips makes the code harder to maintain. Secondly the
> > > spi-dw-core driver exports the methods, then the spi-dw-mmio driver sets
> > > the private data callback with one of them so to be called by the core
> > > driver again. That makes the code logic too complicated. Thirdly using
> > > callbacks for just updating the CR0 register is problematic, since in case
> > > if the register needed to be updated from different parts of the code,
> > > we'd have to create another callback (for instance the SPI device-specific
> > > parameters don't need to be calculated each time the SPI transfer is
> > > submitted, so it's better to pre-calculate the CR0 data at the SPI-device
> > > setup stage).
> > >
> > > So keeping all the above in mind let's discard the update_cr0() callbacks,
> > > define a generic and static dw_spi_update_cr0() method and create the
> > > DW_SPI_CAP_DWC_SSI capability, which when enabled would activate the
> > > alternative CR0 register layout.
> > >
> > > While at it add the comments to the code path of the normal DW APB SSI
> > > controller setup to make the dw_spi_update_cr0() method looking coherent.
> >
>
> > What the point to increase indentation level and produce additional churn?
> > Can't you simply leave functions, unexport them, and call in one conditional of
> > whatever new function is called?
>
> I forgot to mention that in the commit log, there is another reason why it's
> better to create a generic dw_spi_update_cr0() instead of doing what you suggest.
> As it will be seen from the following up patches, the dw_spi_update_cr0() function
> (to be more precise it's successor, but anyway) will be used from the SPI memory
> ops implementation. So if-else-ing here and there isn't a good idea for
> maintainability. For the same reason of the maintainability it's better to have a
> generic method which reflects all the config peculiarities, so in case of any
> changes they would be not be forgotten to be introduced for both DWC SSI and DW
> APB SSI parts of the setup procedures. As I see it that overbeats the additional
> indentation level drawback.

What I meant is to leave functions as is and call them under conditional

if ()
 call one
else
 call another


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko