[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190201164508.4d1b214d@bbrezillon>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 16:45:08 +0100
From: Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@...nel.org>
To: <Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com>
Cc: <mark.rutland@....com>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
<Ludovic.Desroches@...rochip.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] spi: atmel-quadspi: add support for sam9x60
qspi controller
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 14:49:27 +0000
<Tudor.Ambarus@...rochip.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> +#define QSPI_IFR_APBTFRTYP_READ BIT(24)
> >
> > And this one would be
> >
> > define QSPI_IFR_SAM9X60_READ_TRSFR BIT(24)
>
> I prefer letting this bit named as in the datasheet, QSPI_IFR_APBTFRTYP_READ,
> and change it if future versions of the IP will modify its sense. It is a READ
> transfer done on APB, it is more generic this way. If you have a strong opinion
> on this, please let me know.
As you wish.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists