On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:25:05AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:17:27AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Admittedly, as he's using an out-of-tree driver, I'm not
> > sure I know exactly what failure modes he is hitting yet.
> Sorry, I realized I misread here. He's using spi-sunxi. Given that...
> ... is this code even valid?
> static int sun6i_spi_transfer_one(struct spi_master *master,
> struct spi_device *spi,
> struct spi_transfer *tfr)
> {
> ...
> /* We don't support transfer larger than the FIFO */
> if (tfr->len > SUN6I_FIFO_DEPTH)
> return -EINVAL;
> Seems like it should be looping over the transfer in multiple chunks
> instead.
Well, it's not ideal. Like I say I think that logic probably belongs in
the core rather than individual drivers then we minimise the problems,
if I remember correctly there was the suggestion that the DMA code was
going to follow soon and be used for larger transfers when the original
driver was merged.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
