On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 05:11:15PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 03:13:49PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 06:34:49AM +0000, Joy Chakraborty wrote: ... > > > - if (n_bytes == 1) > > > + switch (n_bytes) { > > > + case 1: > > > return DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_1_BYTE; > > > - else if (n_bytes == 2) > > > + case 2: > > > return DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_2_BYTES; > > > - > > > - return DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_UNDEFINED; > > > > > + case 3: > > > > I'm not sure about this. > > This actually makes sense seeing the function argument can have values > 1, 2, _3_ and 4: > dws->n_bytes = DIV_ROUND_UP(transfer->bits_per_word, BITS_PER_BYTE); > transfer->bits_per_word = __F__(master->bits_per_word_mask = SPI_BPW_RANGE_MASK(4, 32)); > ... > dw_spi_dma_convert_width(dws->n_bytes) > > The spi_transfer.bits_per_word field value depends on the > SPI peripheral device communication protocol requirements which may > imply the 3-bytes word xfers (even though it's indeed unluckily). > > This semantic will also match to what we currently have in the > IRQ-based SPI-transfer implementation (see dw_writer() and > dw_reader()). Nice, but we have DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_3_BYTES definition for that. Why we don't use it? > > > + case 4: > > > + return DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_4_BYTES; > > > + default: > > > + return DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_UNDEFINED; > > > + } -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko