[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOMqctSp6ghbbjL5RDU30L9LMcBp=mHgK_ymtka5ngGTRDVSug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:43:39 +0200
From: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...il.com>
To: Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com>
Cc: linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
Simon Horman <horms+renesas@...ge.net.au>,
Sjoerd Simons <sjoerd.simons@...labora.co.uk>,
Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
Alison Wang <b18965@...escale.com>,
Timo Sigurdsson <public_timo.s@...entcreek.de>,
Jonathan Liu <net147@...il.com>,
Gerhard Bertelsmann <info@...hard-bertelsmann.de>,
Priit Laes <plaes@...es.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"Mailing List, Arm" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH v3 07/13] spi: sunxi: rename constants to
match between sun4i and sun6i
Hello,
On 14 June 2016 at 01:31, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Michal,
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...il.com> wrote:
>> SUNXI_CTL_ -> SUNXI_TFR_CTL_
>> SUNXI_TFR_CTL_LMTF -> SUNXI_TFR_CTL_FBS
>
> I don't know these abbreviations, are they both referring to the same thing?
>
>> SUNXI_TFR_CTL_CS_ACTIVE_LOW -> SUNXI_TFR_CTL_SPOL
>
> It looks like you're making the constant name less descriptive here.
> Is the old version (CS_ACTIVE_LOW) incorrect?
>
>> and some SUNXI_???_CTL_ -> SUNXI_CTL_
>> for constants migrated to different registers between sun4i and sun6i
>>
>> No functional change.
>>
>> #define SUNXI_INT_CTL_REG 0x0c
>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c b/drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c
>> index a27bf8f..f26b52a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c
>> @@ -26,9 +26,9 @@
>> #define SUNXI_FIFO_DEPTH 128
>>
>> #define SUNXI_GBL_CTL_REG 0x04
>> -#define SUNXI_GBL_CTL_BUS_ENABLE BIT(0)
>> -#define SUNXI_GBL_CTL_MASTER BIT(1)
>> -#define SUNXI_GBL_CTL_TP BIT(7)
>> +#define SUNXI_CTL_ENABLE BIT(0)
>> +#define SUNXI_CTL_MASTER BIT(1)
>> +#define SUNXI_CTL_TP BIT(7)
>
> If these are bit definitions for the GBL register, why throw that
> information away?
Those bits are on the TFR register in the earlier IP so it makes
perfect sense to me this way.
Thanks
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists