On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 02:54:57PM -0800, Andrew Bresticker wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> drivers/spi/spi-img.c | 703 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > How about spi-img-spfi? That way if someone makes another SPI > > controller (say a more generic one, this one seems flash specialized) > > there won't be a collision. > Despite the name, I believe this controller is used for generic SPI > stuff as well. I'm not sure if there is a separate one which is more > generic (James?). It would still be better to use a name less impressively generic - this is an entire company, not even a product line. > >> + cpu_relax(); > > Seems random - we already relax in the data transfer? > We don't relax in the transfers - would that be a better place to put > it? I thought it was better here since we reach this point once the > TX FIFO has filled or RX FIFO has emptied. Oh, that was the FIFO drain I was thinking of. I guess here is fine. > >> + if (tx_buf) > >> + spfi_flush_tx_fifo(spfi); > >> + spfi_disable(spfi); > > What does the enable and disable actually do? Should this be runtime > > PM? > It starts/stops the transfer. The control registers (bit clock, > transfer mode, etc.) must be programmed before the enable bit is set > and the bit does not clear itself upon completion of the transfer. I > don't think it makes sense to have this be part of runtime PM. Perhaps these functions need to be called start() and stop() then - the names sound like they gate the IP? > > This will unconditionally claim to have handled an interrupt even if it > > didn't get any interrupt status it has ever heard of. At the very least > > it should log unknown interrupts, ideally return IRQ_NONE though since > > it seems to be a clear on read interrupt that's a bit misleading. > There's a clear register actually (see the writel() above), but yes, > an error and returning IRQ_NONE sound appropriate in the event of an > unexpected interrupt. Don't add the error print - the interrupt core has diagnostics already and it won't be nice if the interrupt ends up shared. My recommendation was intended as an either/or.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
