[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZVx1ic9/vxDDStoE@francesco-nb.int.toradex.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 10:16:57 +0100
From: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>, linux@...ler.io
Cc: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>,
Stefan Moring <stefan.moring@...hnolution.nl>,
Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spi: imx: Increase imx51 ecspi burst length fails on imx6dl and
imx8mm
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 10:06:51AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 20.11.23 18:48, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 04:30:15PM +0100, Stefan Moring wrote:
> >> Can you verify the values used for the transfer, spi_imx->count and spi_imx->
> >> bits_per_word inside the mx51_ecpsi_prepare_transfer() method? Those are the
> >> only two things that changed in the commits. Maybe compare them to the working
> >> version?
> >
> > I would suggest to bisect the issue to the actual commit that
> > introduced the regression, I do not think this was done yet.
>
> I think it was. To quote
Whoops, you are right.
> spi: Increase imx51 ecspi burst length based on transfer length
> 15a6af94a2779d5dfb42ee4bfac858ea8e964a3f
>
> spi: imx: Take in account bits per word instead of assuming 8-bits
> 5f66db08cbd3ca471c66bacb0282902c79db9274
Do we know which one of those two commits introduces this regression?
Francesco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists