Hi Sergey, On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 4:06 AM Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > +static void elba_spics_set_cs(struct dw_spi_elba *dwselba, int cs, int enable) > > +{ > > + regmap_update_bits(dwselba->regmap, dwselba->reg, ELBA_SPICS_MASK(cs), > > + ELBA_SPICS_SET(cs, enable)); > > +} > > + > > +static void dw_spi_elba_set_cs(struct spi_device *spi, bool enable) > > The methods naming is ambiguous. Moreover it breaks this module naming > convention. Could you change them to something like: > dw_spi_elba_override_cs() > and > dw_spi_elba_set_cs() > ? Yes, changed elba_spics_set_cs() -> dw_spi_elba_override_cs() > > + /* deassert cs */ > > > + elba_spics_set_cs(dwselba, 0, 1); > > + elba_spics_set_cs(dwselba, 1, 1); > > What if the CS lines are of the active-high type? In that case basically > you get to do the opposite to what you claim in the comment here. > > Note the CS setting into the deactivated state is done in the spi_setup() > method anyway, at the moment of the peripheral SPI device registration > stage (see its calling the spi_set_cs() function). Thus what you are doing > here is redundant. Yes this is a redundant initialization and is removed. For Elba these CS lines are active-low only. Regards, Brad