Hi Boris, On 21/05/20 08:22PM, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Wed, 20 May 2020 22:00:38 +0530 > Pratyush Yadav <p.yadav@xxxxxx> wrote: > > As mentioned in one of my previous review, you should patch the mxic > driver before extending the opcode field: > > --->8--- > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-mxic.c b/drivers/spi/spi-mxic.c > index 69491f3a515d..c3f4136a7c1d 100644 > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-mxic.c > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-mxic.c > @@ -356,6 +356,7 @@ static int mxic_spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, > int nio = 1, i, ret; > u32 ss_ctrl; > u8 addr[8]; > + u8 cmd[2]; Regarding your comment about bisect-ability, how about I change this to: u8 cmd[sizeof(op->cmd.opcode)]; and put this patch before the change to 2-byte opcodes. This should also make it resistent to further changes in opcode size. Does that sound like a sane idea? > ret = mxic_spi_set_freq(mxic, mem->spi->max_speed_hz); > if (ret) > @@ -393,7 +394,10 @@ static int mxic_spi_mem_exec_op(struct spi_mem *mem, > writel(readl(mxic->regs + HC_CFG) | HC_CFG_MAN_CS_ASSERT, > mxic->regs + HC_CFG); > > - ret = mxic_spi_data_xfer(mxic, &op->cmd.opcode, NULL, 1); > + for (i = 0; i < op->cmd.nbytes; i++) > + cmd[i] = op->cmd.opcode >> (8 * (op->cmd.nbytes - i - 1)); > + > + ret = mxic_spi_data_xfer(mxic, cmd, NULL, op->cmd.nbytes); > if (ret) > goto out; > -- Regards, Pratyush Yadav Texas Instruments India ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/