[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <969a083998224016947f5e77218f4587@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2023 16:39:30 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Joy Chakraborty' <joychakr@...gle.com>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
CC: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
"linux-spi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"manugautam@...gle.com" <manugautam@...gle.com>,
"rohitner@...gle.com" <rohitner@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v8 5/5] spi: dw: Round of n_bytes to power of 2
From: Joy Chakraborty
> Sent: 21 April 2023 10:22
...
> Sure, I can make the following change in the formatting and send the
> patch series:
> dws->n_bytes =
> roundup_pow_of_two(DIV_ROUND_UP(transfer->bits_per_word,
> BITS_PER_BYTE));
Won't checkpatch bleat about that?
Is it ever actually valid for the caller to provide a
value that isn't 8, 16 or 32 ?
I'm sure it looked as though some other lengths/counts
where likely to go badly wrong.
I know there are times when it is useful to bit-bang 'odd'
numbers of bits - like command+address+delay for fast reads
but that is a sub-32bit transfer so (at least somewhere)
is 1 word but not all the bits.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists