Re: [RFC/PATCHv2 3/3] spi: dw-spi: Pointers select 16b vs. 32b DesignWare access

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2015-03-10 at 17:22 -0500, Thor Thayer wrote:


> > However, I'm now considering what if we just replace
> > dw_{write/read}w() by l-variants without any additional DT property
> > and accessor functions?
> > Would it work for both your cases (old chip, new chip)?
> > On my side I may test this on Intel MID.
> >
> 
> Yes, this would be the simplest solution. The l-variant certainly works 
> on our legacy SoCs. I'll be curious to hear your testing results.

Whenever you send a new version of patch.

> The data sheet mentions that registers are addressed at 32-bit 
> boundaries to remain consistent with the AHB bus (Section 6.1 of 
> dw_apb_ssi_db.pdf).  Additionally unused bits are reserved for writes 
> and 0 for reads so this seems like a good solution.
> 
> My concern is the presence of legacy devices that I have no way of 
> testing. Is a Request For Test in the body of the patch sufficient?

Better to write this wider in cover letter or (in case of one patch) in
additional description usually located after '---' line.

Since I fixed couple of bugs in core I'm not sure we have a lot of
users. Nevertheless, can you check who was recent and / or active
contributor to spi-dw-mmio.c and put him / her to Cc list.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux