Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] mtd: cfi_cmdset_0001: Factor out do_write_buffer_locked() to reduce stack frame

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Sun, Feb 01, 2026 at 03:29:59PM +0530, Raghavendra, Vignesh wrote:
> On 1/29/2026 11:53 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote:

...

> >>>  	XIP_INVAL_CACHED_RANGE(map, initial_adr, initial_len);
> >>>  	ENABLE_VPP(map);
> >>
> >> It seems more logical to leave these two in the original call.
> >>
> >> ...
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> >>> +	DISABLE_VPP(map);
> >>
> >> Otherwise this will seem dangling here.
> >>
> >>>  	put_chip(map, chip, cmd_adr);
> >>>  	mutex_unlock(&chip->mutex);
> >>>  	return ret;
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Another approach is to leave goto as is in the _locked() and move DISABLE_VPP()
> >> there.
> >>
> >> Tell me what do you prefer?
> > 
> > While I also find more logical to keep the ENABLE_VPP/DISABLE_VPP
> > together, I do not mind to see them in one side or the other. I would by
> > default let them in the main caller and suffi the inner function with
> > "_locked()" as you did, but I'm fine either ways.
> 
> Keeping ENABLE_VPP/DISABLE_VPP together along with _locked() suffix for
> inner function is cleaner to read.

I just sent a v2 where I kept them in the original call.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko