On 14 June 2016 at 06:47, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On 14 June 2016 at 01:43, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi Michal, >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> The drivers are very similar and share multiple flaws which needed >>>> separate fixes for both drivers. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/spi/Kconfig | 8 +- >>>> drivers/spi/Makefile | 1 - >>>> drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c | 156 +++++++++++-- >>>> drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c | 598 ------------------------------------------------ >>>> 4 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 620 deletions(-) >>>> delete mode 100644 drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c b/drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c >>>> index 0b8e6c6..c76f8e4 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c >>>> @@ -279,9 +321,14 @@ static int sunxi_spi_transfer_one(struct spi_master *master, >>>> reg = sunxi_spi_read(sspi, SUNXI_TFR_CTL_REG); >>>> >>>> /* Reset FIFOs */ >>>> - sunxi_spi_write(sspi, SUNXI_TFR_CTL_REG, >>>> - reg | sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_RF_RST) | >>>> - sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_TF_RST)); >>>> + if (sspi->type == SPI_SUN4I) >>>> + sunxi_spi_write(sspi, SUNXI_TFR_CTL_REG, >>>> + reg | sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_RF_RST) | >>>> + sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_TF_RST)); >>>> + else >>>> + sunxi_spi_write(sspi, SUNXI_FIFO_CTL_REG, >>>> + sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_RF_RST) | >>>> + sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_TF_RST)); >>> >>> If we're already doing different stuff for each generation of the IP, >>> why not just use the register offsets and bit definitions directly? >> >> Because having (*sspi->regmap)[SUNXI_FIFO_CTL_REG] all over the place >> makes my eyes bleed and you cannot use the check that you are >> accessing a register that actually exists. > > I mean removing SUNXI_CTL_RF_RST and SUNXI_CTL_TF_RST from all of the > indirection you added and using them directly, i.e. > > #define SUN4I_TFR_CTL_RF_RST BIT(x) > #define SUN4I_TFR_CTL_TF_RST BIT(x) > #define SUN6I_FIFO_CTL_RF_RST BIT(x) > #define SUN6I_FIFO_CTL_TF_RST BIT(x) > > then > > if (sspi->type == SPI_SUN4I) > sunxi_spi_write(sspi, SUNXI_TFR_CTL_REG, reg | > SUN4I_TFR_CTL_RF_RST | SUN4I_TFR_CTL_TF_RST); > else > sunxi_spi_write(sspi, SUNXI_FIFO_CTL_REG, reg | > SUN6I_FIFO_CTL_RF_RST | SUN6I_FIFO_CTL_TF_RST); > > I.e. the bits that need setting are in different registers, so you > have to have an if statement and separate calls. Therefore there's no > real benefit from the indirection you've introduced here, unless > you're expecting the SUN8I variant to use different bits in one of > those two registers. > That looks nice for this particular case. Still you will have to remember that these bits are specified directly while other bits on the register are mapped which is not so nice. 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
