On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 14:28:27 +0000 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> + writel_relaxed(cfg->ifr, aq->regs + QSPI_IFR); > >> +} > > > > Hm, so the only difference we have is the RICR vs ICR reg and the > > APBTFRTYP_READ vs SAMA5D2_WRITE_TRSFR bit. Not sure it deserves > > creating 2 hooks for that. Can we have something like ->has_ricr in > > the caps and then have an if/else block directly in > > atmel_qspi_set_cfg()? > > > > Correct. It is a cost of an extra if, I tried to avoid it. I like it better > with > these two hooks, but if you have a strong opinion I'll do it, just confirm it > again. The cost of an indirect call is actually higher than an extra if/else block. I'm not against paying this extra cost when implementations are completely different, but that does not seem to be the case here. Moreover, if you get rid of these hooks, you can also get rid of the cfg struct.
