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 >