Hi Alain,
thanks for the patch. A few comments:
> @@ -303,6 +303,8 @@ struct stm32f7_i2c_msg {
> * @dma: dma data
> * @use_dma: boolean to know if dma is used in the current transfer
> * @regmap: holds SYSCFG phandle for Fast Mode Plus bits
> + * @regmap_reg: register address for setting Fast Mode Plus bits
> + * @regmap_mask: mask for Fast Mode Plus bits in set register
> * @wakeup_src: boolean to know if the device is a wakeup source
> */
> struct stm32f7_i2c_dev {
> @@ -326,6 +328,8 @@ struct stm32f7_i2c_dev {
> struct stm32_i2c_dma *dma;
> bool use_dma;
> struct regmap *regmap;
> + u32 regmap_reg;
> + u32 regmap_mask;
Is this really a descriptive naming? From looking at the code,
'syscfg_reg' or 'fmp_reg' sound more suitable to me?
> +{
> + if (i2c_dev->speed != STM32_I2C_SPEED_FAST_PLUS ||
> + IS_ERR_OR_NULL(i2c_dev->regmap)) {
> + /* Optional */
> + return 0;
> + }
No brackets needed here.
> - ret = of_property_read_u32_index(np, "st,syscfg-fmp", 2, &mask);
> + ret = of_property_read_u32_index(np, "st,syscfg-fmp", 2,
> + &i2c_dev->regmap_mask);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - return regmap_update_bits(i2c_dev->regmap, reg, mask, mask);
> + return 0;
Can be shortened now to
return of_property_read_u32_index(...);
> + ret = stm32f7_i2c_write_fm_plus_bits(i2c_dev, 1);
The type of the last parameter is bool, so using 'true/false' instead of
'1/0' is a tad more readable, I think.
Regards,
Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
