[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vf3NCkbw39E+d_nf+AyViG2o-u5HxrCjXXmbGk4LaFLog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:02:15 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Eddie James <eajames@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: Add FSI-attached SPI controller driver
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 10:33 PM Eddie James <eajames@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 1/30/20 10:37 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:09 PM Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
...
> >> + struct device *dev;
> > Isn't fsl->dev the same?
> > Perhaps kernel doc to explain the difference?
>
>
> No, it's not the same, as dev here is the SPI controller. I'll add a
> comment.
Why to have duplication then?
> >> + struct fsi_device *fsi;
...
> >> + for (i = 0; i < num_bytes; ++i)
> >> + rx[i] = (u8)((in >> (8 * ((num_bytes - 1) - i))) & 0xffULL);
> > Redundant & 0xffULL part.
> >
> > Isn't it NIH of get_unalinged_be64 / le64 or something similar?
>
>
> No, these are shift in/out operations. The read register will also have
> previous operations data in them and must be extracted with only the
> correct number of bytes.
Why not to call put_unaligned() how the tail in this case (it's 0 or
can be easily made to be 0) will affect the result?
> >> + return num_bytes;
> >> +}
> >> +static int fsi_spi_data_out(u64 *out, const u8 *tx, int len)
> >> +{
> > Ditto as for above function. (put_unaligned ...)
Ditto.
> >> +}
...
> >> +static int fsi_spi_transfer_data(struct fsi_spi *ctx,
> >> + struct spi_transfer *transfer)
> >> +{
> > Can you refactor to tx and rx parts?
>
>
> Why?
It's way too long function to read. Indentation level also can improve
readability.
That's basically what refactoring is for.
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
...
> >> + if ((clock_cfg & (SPI_FSI_CLOCK_CFG_MM_ENABLE |
> >> + SPI_FSI_CLOCK_CFG_ECC_DISABLE |
> >> + SPI_FSI_CLOCK_CFG_MODE |
> >> + SPI_FSI_CLOCK_CFG_SCK_RECV_DEL |
> >> + SPI_FSI_CLOCK_CFG_SCK_DIV)) != wanted_clock_cfg)
> >> + rc = fsi_spi_write_reg(ctx, SPI_FSI_CLOCK_CFG,
> >> + wanted_clock_cfg);
> > Missed {} ?
>
>
> No? It's one line under the if.
One statement, but *two* lines.
What does checkpatch.pl tell you about this?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists