Quoting Doug Anderson (2020-06-18 17:40:59) > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 4:40 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > @@ -373,12 +366,14 @@ static void setup_fifo_xfer(struct spi_transfer *xfer, > > len &= TRANS_LEN_MSK; > > > > mas->cur_xfer = xfer; > > - if (m_cmd & SPI_TX_ONLY) { > > + if (xfer->tx_buf) { > > + m_cmd |= SPI_TX_ONLY; > > mas->tx_rem_bytes = xfer->len; > > writel(len, se->base + SE_SPI_TX_TRANS_LEN); > > } > > > > - if (m_cmd & SPI_RX_ONLY) { > > + if (xfer->rx_buf) { > > + m_cmd |= SPI_RX_ONLY; > > If you're going to touch this, could you change "SPI_TX_ONLY" to > "SPI_TX_ENABLED" and "SPI_RX_ONLY" to 'SPI_RX_ENABLED". It felt > really weird to me that if you had full duplex you were setting > "RX_ONLY" and "TX_ONLY". I agree, except in the register documentation it is called "TX only", "RX only" and "Full-Duplex". So I'd rather leave it alone. > > Other than that, your change is nice and cleans things up a bit, so > even if you don't do the extra cleanup: > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks.