[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <VE1PR04MB66387499F9AF80A68F720529899D0@VE1PR04MB6638.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:13:08 +0000
From: Robin Gong <yibin.gong@....com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
"festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>,
"matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.com"
<matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.com>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1 RFC 1/2] spi: introduce fallback to pio
On 2020/06/16 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 02:03:40AM +0000, Robin Gong wrote:
> > struct list_head transfer_list;
> > +
> > +#define SPI_TRANS_DMA_PREP_FAIL BIT(3) /* prepare dma
> failed */
> > + u16 flags;
>
> I'd just make this a generic flag for failures before we start interacting with the
> hardware rather than specifically this one error case. Otherwise this looks
> fine.
So rename to SPI_TRANS_DMA_FAIL? I think at least DMA is MUST for fallback
case...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists