Hi,
On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 08:55 +0530, Sricharan R wrote:
<snip>
> #define ONE_BYTE 0x1
> +#define QUP_I2C_MX_CONFIG_DURING_RUN BIT(31)
>
> struct qup_i2c_block {
> int count;
> @@ -121,6 +122,7 @@ struct qup_i2c_block {
> int rx_tag_len;
> int data_len;
> u8 tags[6];
> + int config_run;
This is not directly related to "block" control logic, right?
Could it made part of qup_i2c_dev structure?
> };
>
> struct qup_i2c_dev {
> @@ -152,6 +154,10 @@ struct qup_i2c_dev {
>
> int (*qup_i2c_write_one)(struct qup_i2c_dev *qup,
> struct i2c_msg *msg);
> + /* Current i2c_msg in i2c_msgs */
> + int cmsg;
> + /* total num of i2c_msgs */
> + int num;
I think it will be simpler with just "bool is_last" evaluated in main xfer loop.
<snip>
>
> @@ -374,6 +383,9 @@ static void qup_i2c_get_blk_data(struct qup_i2c_dev *qup,
> /* There are 2 tag bytes that are read in to fifo for every block */
> if (msg->flags & I2C_M_RD)
> qup->blk.rx_tag_len = qup->blk.count * 2;
> +
> + if (qup->cmsg)
> + qup->blk.config_run = QUP_I2C_MX_CONFIG_DURING_RUN;
This could be moved to qup_i2c_xfer_v2() to avoid repeatedly setting it.
> }
Regards,
Ivan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
