On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:07:40 +0000 <Tudor.Ambarus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> #define QSPI_IFR_TFRTYP_MASK GENMASK(13, 12) > >> #define QSPI_IFR_TFRTYP_TRSFR_READ (0 << 12) > >> #define QSPI_IFR_TFRTYP_TRSFR_READ_MEM (1 << 12) > > > > Looks like the read/write flag is on bit 13. Can we just add > > for sama5d2 only Feel free to prefix macros with the SoC name to make it clear: #define QSPI_IFR_SAMA5D2_WRITE_TRSFR BIT(13) > > > > > #define QSPI_IFR_TFRTYP_TRSFR_WRITE BIT(13) > > > > and drop all others def? This way the implementation is consistent > > between sam9x60 and sama5d2. > > BIT(13) has no meaning for sam9x60. I can drop the macros with zero value for > sama5d2 in a separate patch. > > > >> +#define QSPI_IFR_APBTFRTYP_READ BIT(24) And this one would be define QSPI_IFR_SAM9X60_READ_TRSFR BIT(24) > >> > >> /* Bitfields in QSPI_SMR (Scrambling Mode Register) */ > >> #define QSPI_SMR_SCREN BIT(0) > >> @@ -137,16 +144,37 @@ > >> #define QSPI_WPSR_WPVSRC(src) (((src) << 8) & QSPI_WPSR_WPVSRC) > >> > >> > >> +/* Describes register values. */ > >> +struct atmel_qspi_cfg { > >> + u32 icr; > >> + u32 iar; > >> + u32 ifr; > >> +}; > >> + > >> +struct atmel_qspi_caps; > >> + > >> struct atmel_qspi { > >> void __iomem *regs; > >> void __iomem *mem; > >> struct clk *clk; > > > > Can we rename that on pclk? > > will rename it, together with the support for unnamed clock of sama5d2 in a separate > patch. The dt-bindings patch that imposes "pclk" for sama5d2 should be separated too. Sounds good.