Mark, A concrete question is below of my previous comment. On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:17:37AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 02:52:33PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 02:28:55PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > > - /* > > > - * SPI mode (SCPOL|SCPH) > > > - * CTRLR0[ 8] Serial Clock Phase > > > - * CTRLR0[ 9] Serial Clock Polarity > > > - */ > > > - cr0 |= ((spi->mode & SPI_CPOL) ? 1 : 0) << DWC_SSI_CTRLR0_SCPOL_OFFSET; > > > - cr0 |= ((spi->mode & SPI_CPHA) ? 1 : 0) << DWC_SSI_CTRLR0_SCPH_OFFSET; > > > > > > + cr0 |= SSI_MOTO_SPI << DWC_SSI_CTRLR0_FRF_OFFSET; > > > + cr0 |= ((spi->mode & SPI_CPOL) ? 1 : 0) << DWC_SSI_CTRLR0_SCPOL_OFFSET; > > > + cr0 |= ((spi->mode & SPI_CPHA) ? 1 : 0) << DWC_SSI_CTRLR0_SCPH_OFFSET; > > > > The new code seems less well commented than the old code here. > > You are right. The comments are omitted. The thing is that they are absolutely > redundant here, for the same reason they haven't been added to the standard > update_cr0() method. Both the DWC SSI-capable and standard DW APB SSI-specific > part of the code do the same thing: setup the CTRLR0 fields, which are described > by the macro definitions. So there is no need to duplicate that information in > the comments, moreover seeing it can be inferred from the code. > > -Sergey My response to your comment was that those in-code comments have been absolutely redundant. So I just removed them, since I was touching that part of the driver anyway. If you are agree with me having that done here, then please, accept the patch the way it is. If you disagree, or have any other though, please give me your answer, why. -Sergey
