On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 01:47:44PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > It's pointless to track the Tx overrun interrupts if Rx-only SPI > transfer is issued. Similarly there is no need in handling the Rx > overrun/underrun interrupts if Tx-only SPI transfer is executed. > So lets unmask the interrupts only if corresponding SPI > transactions are implied. My comments below. > Co-developed-by: Georgy Vlasov <Georgy.Vlasov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Georgy Vlasov <Georgy.Vlasov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Ramil Zaripov <Ramil.Zaripov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Paul Burton <paulburton@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > Cc: Allison Randal <allison@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Gareth Williams <gareth.williams.jx@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I think you really need to revisit Cc list in all patches (DT people hardly interested in this one, though ones where properties are being used might be point of interest). ... > /* Set the interrupt mask */ > - spi_umask_intr(dws, SPI_INT_TXOI | SPI_INT_RXUI | SPI_INT_RXOI); > + spi_umask_intr(dws, imr); Can we rather do like this /* Set the interrupt mask */ if (xfer->tx_buf) imr |= SPI_INT_TXOI; if (xfer->rx_buf) imr |= SPI_INT_RXUI | SPI_INT_RXOI; spi_umask_intr(dws, imr); ? (First block sets DMA, second one IRQ) -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
