On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:43:24AM -0400, Kamal Dasu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I am confused why we are parsing the interrupt-names property here?
> For Muxed L1 single source interrupt, there is only one irq, and SoCs
> could use a different different name wanted to use that name. But I
> could force a name as well.
Either don't use names or force a name, trying to mix the two is just
messy.
> >> + /*
> >> + * Some SoCs integrate spi controller (e.g., its interrupt bits)
> >> + * in specific ways
> >> + */
> >> + if (soc) {
> >> + qspi->soc = soc;
> >> + soc->bcm_qspi_int_set(soc, MSPI_DONE, true);
> >> + } else {
> >> + qspi->soc = NULL;
> >> + }
> > The variable name "soc" here doesn't seem hugely descriptive when it's
> > just for the interrupt controller.
> Named it that way since it could potentially have other SoC specific
> settings for spi master bus needed in future.
But then that'll break this code - if it's going to be a feature flag
bitmask or something like that it should have an appropriate name and be
used in a way that reflects this.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
