On 06.11.2024 17:21, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Claudiu,
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 4:17 PM Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 06.11.2024 16:56, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 9:19 AM Claudiu <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> While it is still correct to pass zero as the bit-clear mask it may be
>>>> confusing. For this, use a proper bitmask for clear bits.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your patch!
>>>
>>>> --- a/sound/soc/renesas/rz-ssi.c
>>>> +++ b/sound/soc/renesas/rz-ssi.c
>>>> @@ -331,7 +331,7 @@ static void rz_ssi_set_idle(struct rz_ssi_priv *ssi)
>>>> dev_info(ssi->dev, "timeout waiting for SSI idle\n");
>>>>
>>>> /* Hold FIFOs in reset */
>>>> - rz_ssi_reg_mask_setl(ssi, SSIFCR, 0, SSIFCR_FIFO_RST);
>>>> + rz_ssi_reg_mask_setl(ssi, SSIFCR, SSIFCR_FIFO_RST, SSIFCR_FIFO_RST);
>>>
>>> But you're not clearing SSIFCR_FIFO_RST, you're setting it?
>>
>> The bits should be set to reset the FIFOs.
>>
>> By "Use a proper bitmask for clear bits" phrase in the patch title or
>> description I was referring at the 3rd argument of the
>> rz_ssi_reg_mask_setl() function, which has the following prototype:
>>
>> static void rz_ssi_reg_mask_setl(struct rz_ssi_priv *priv, uint reg,
>>
>> u32 bclr, u32 bset)
>>
>>
>> Would you prefer to rephrase it in the next version?
>
> The idea behind such functions is to pass a bitmask representing the
> bits to be cleared to "bclr", and a bitmask representing the bits
> to be set to "bset". In this case, you do not want to clear any bits,
> so the "bclr" parameter should be zero, and the original code is fine.
OK, I'll will drop this patch.
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
