On 02/04/2019 04:16 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 10:10:21 +0000
> <Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> +
>> +static void atmel_qspi_sam9x60_write_regs(const struct atmel_qspi *aq,
>> + const struct spi_mem_op *op,
>> + const struct atmel_qspi_cfg *cfg)
>> +{
>> + /* Clear pending interrupts */
>> + (void)readl_relaxed(aq->regs + QSPI_SR);
>> +
>> + /* Set QSPI Instruction Frame registers */
>> + writel_relaxed(cfg->iar, aq->regs + QSPI_IAR);
>> + if (op->data.dir == SPI_MEM_DATA_IN)
>> + writel_relaxed(cfg->icr, aq->regs + QSPI_RICR);
>> + else
>> + writel_relaxed(cfg->icr, aq->regs + QSPI_ICR);
>
> Can you use WICR here (even if ICR == WICR)?
yes, good catch.
>
>> + 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.
Thanks,
ta
