On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 04:05:59PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 04:03:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 01:47:47PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > This member has exactly the same value as n_bytes of the DW SPI private > > > data object, it's calculated at the same point of the transfer method, > > > n_bytes isn't changed during the whole transfer, and they even serve for > > > the same purpose - keep number of bytes per transfer word, though the > > > dma_width is used only to calculate the DMA source/destination addresses > > > width, which n_bytes could be also utilized for. Taking all of these > > > into account let's replace the dma_width member usage with n_bytes one > > > and remove the former. > > > > I've no strong opinion about this. > > So, after addressing one issue below, > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ... > > > -static enum dma_slave_buswidth convert_dma_width(u32 dma_width) { > > > - if (dma_width == 1) > > > > > +static enum dma_slave_buswidth convert_dma_width(u8 n_bytes) { > > > > It seems somebody (maybe even me) at some point messed up between enum > > definition and function that returns an enum. > > > > For what said, { should be on the separate line. > > See the patch 16/19: "spi: dw: Cleanup generic DW DMA code namings" > in this series. Since you are touching that line here, it makes sense to do it here rather than ping-pong to other patch in very same series. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko