Hello, On 14 June 2016 at 01:31, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> SUNXI_CTL_ -> SUNXI_TFR_CTL_ >> SUNXI_TFR_CTL_LMTF -> SUNXI_TFR_CTL_FBS > > I don't know these abbreviations, are they both referring to the same thing? > >> SUNXI_TFR_CTL_CS_ACTIVE_LOW -> SUNXI_TFR_CTL_SPOL > > It looks like you're making the constant name less descriptive here. > Is the old version (CS_ACTIVE_LOW) incorrect? > >> and some SUNXI_???_CTL_ -> SUNXI_CTL_ >> for constants migrated to different registers between sun4i and sun6i >> >> No functional change. >> >> #define SUNXI_INT_CTL_REG 0x0c >> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c b/drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c >> index a27bf8f..f26b52a 100644 >> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c >> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c >> @@ -26,9 +26,9 @@ >> #define SUNXI_FIFO_DEPTH 128 >> >> #define SUNXI_GBL_CTL_REG 0x04 >> -#define SUNXI_GBL_CTL_BUS_ENABLE BIT(0) >> -#define SUNXI_GBL_CTL_MASTER BIT(1) >> -#define SUNXI_GBL_CTL_TP BIT(7) >> +#define SUNXI_CTL_ENABLE BIT(0) >> +#define SUNXI_CTL_MASTER BIT(1) >> +#define SUNXI_CTL_TP BIT(7) > > If these are bit definitions for the GBL register, why throw that > information away? Those bits are on the TFR register in the earlier IP so it makes perfect sense to me this way. Thanks Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
