On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 04:42:57PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 at 17:47, Marek Vasut > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Move the macro into blk-uclass.c , since it is only used there. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <[email protected]> > > --- > > Cc: AKASHI Takahiro <[email protected]> > > Cc: Abdellatif El Khlifi <[email protected]> > > Cc: Bin Meng <[email protected]> > > Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> > > Cc: Joshua Watt <[email protected]> > > Cc: Michal Suchanek <[email protected]> > > Cc: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > Cc: Tobias Waldekranz <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/block/blk-uclass.c | 2 ++ > > include/blk.h | 2 -- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > > Unfortunately this does not stop people using the ops member directly. > > For this series, I tried a patch myself [1] but I think I stuffed it > up. So I will let Takahiro-San figure it out. I would very much like > to see this clean-up go in.
At that time I thought that the necessary change was small and trivial:) As for Marek's patch, let me first explain why I implement that way, i.e. separating disk_blk_*() from part_disk_*(): - Initially I tried to implement disk_blk_*() work for both UCLASS_BLOCK and UCLASS_PARTITION, while this idea was rejected by Simon. - Then, I implemented part_disk_*() with direct access to the devices, and part_disk_*(), as helper functions, with block caching. I thought that this approach was aligned with the implementation of block devices (blk_[read|wirte]). If you don't think the second point makes sense, I can agree to Marek's approach. Thanks, -Takahiro Akashi > Regards, > Simon > > [1] > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/
