Hi Michal, On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The drivers are very similar and share multiple flaws which needed > separate fixes for both drivers. > > Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/spi/Kconfig | 8 +- > drivers/spi/Makefile | 1 - > drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c | 156 +++++++++++-- > drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c | 598 ------------------------------------------------ > 4 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 620 deletions(-) > delete mode 100644 drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c > > diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c b/drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c > index 0b8e6c6..c76f8e4 100644 > --- a/drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c > @@ -279,9 +321,14 @@ static int sunxi_spi_transfer_one(struct spi_master *master, > reg = sunxi_spi_read(sspi, SUNXI_TFR_CTL_REG); > > /* Reset FIFOs */ > - sunxi_spi_write(sspi, SUNXI_TFR_CTL_REG, > - reg | sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_RF_RST) | > - sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_TF_RST)); > + if (sspi->type == SPI_SUN4I) > + sunxi_spi_write(sspi, SUNXI_TFR_CTL_REG, > + reg | sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_RF_RST) | > + sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_TF_RST)); > + else > + sunxi_spi_write(sspi, SUNXI_FIFO_CTL_REG, > + sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_RF_RST) | > + sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_TF_RST)); If we're already doing different stuff for each generation of the IP, why not just use the register offsets and bit definitions directly? > > /* > * Setup the transfer control register: Chip Select, > @@ -427,7 +473,19 @@ static int sunxi_spi_runtime_resume(struct device *dev) > goto err; > } > > - sunxi_spi_write(sspi, SUNXI_TFR_CTL_REG, > + if (sspi->rstc) { > + ret = reset_control_deassert(sspi->rstc); > + if (ret) { > + dev_err(dev, "Couldn't deassert the device from reset\n"); > + goto err2; > + } > + } > + > + if (sspi->type == SPI_SUN4I) > + reg = SUNXI_TFR_CTL_REG; > + else > + reg = SUNXI_GBL_CTL_REG; > + sunxi_spi_write(sspi, reg, > sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_ENABLE) | > sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_MASTER) | > sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_TP)); Same here. > @@ -491,10 +558,37 @@ static int sunxi_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > } > > sspi->master = master; > - sspi->fifo_depth = SUN4I_FIFO_DEPTH; > - sspi->type = SPI_SUN4I; > - sspi->regmap = &sun4i_regmap; > - sspi->bitmap = &sun4i_bitmap; > + if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, SUN4I_COMPATIBLE)) { > + sspi->fifo_depth = SUN4I_FIFO_DEPTH; > + sspi->type = SPI_SUN4I; > + sspi->regmap = &sun4i_regmap; > + sspi->bitmap = &sun4i_bitmap; > + } else if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, > + SUN6I_COMPATIBLE)) { > + sspi->fifo_depth = SUN6I_FIFO_DEPTH; > + sspi->type = SPI_SUN6I; > + sspi->regmap = &sun6i_regmap; > + sspi->bitmap = &sun6i_bitmap; Can you store data in the match table instead of doing this? > + } else { > + const char *str = NULL; > + int i = 1; > + > + of_property_read_string(pdev->dev.of_node, "compatible", &str); > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Unknown device compatible %s", str); > + /* is there no sane way to print a string array property ? */ > + if (of_property_count_strings(pdev->dev.of_node, "compatible") > + > 1) { > + while (!of_property_read_string_index(pdev->dev.of_node, > + "compatible", i, > + &str)) { > + pr_err(", %s", str); > + i++; > + } > + } > + ret = -EINVAL; > + goto err_free_master; > + } > + > master->max_speed_hz = 100 * 1000 * 1000; > master->min_speed_hz = 3 * 1000; > master->set_cs = sunxi_spi_set_cs; Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ -- 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