Hi Sergey,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 4:06 AM Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +static void elba_spics_set_cs(struct dw_spi_elba *dwselba, int cs, int enable)
> > +{
> > + regmap_update_bits(dwselba->regmap, dwselba->reg, ELBA_SPICS_MASK(cs),
> > + ELBA_SPICS_SET(cs, enable));
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void dw_spi_elba_set_cs(struct spi_device *spi, bool enable)
>
> The methods naming is ambiguous. Moreover it breaks this module naming
> convention. Could you change them to something like:
> dw_spi_elba_override_cs()
> and
> dw_spi_elba_set_cs()
> ?
Yes, changed elba_spics_set_cs() -> dw_spi_elba_override_cs()
> > + /* deassert cs */
>
> > + elba_spics_set_cs(dwselba, 0, 1);
> > + elba_spics_set_cs(dwselba, 1, 1);
>
> What if the CS lines are of the active-high type? In that case basically
> you get to do the opposite to what you claim in the comment here.
>
> Note the CS setting into the deactivated state is done in the spi_setup()
> method anyway, at the moment of the peripheral SPI device registration
> stage (see its calling the spi_set_cs() function). Thus what you are doing
> here is redundant.
Yes this is a redundant initialization and is removed. For Elba these CS lines
are active-low only.
Regards,
Brad
