[U-Boot] [PATCH v5 14/14] dm-sf: Re-factorize spi_flash_std_probe code

[Bin Meng]

Hi Jagan,

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Jagan Teki <jteki at openedev.com> wrote:
> On 28 October 2015 at 00:50, Troy Kisky <troy.kisky at 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.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jteki at 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