[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56e13a29-c087-4fe3-abf5-ebbad28ddfdb@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 09:50:40 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Ivaylo Ivanov <ivo.ivanov.ivanov1@...il.com>,
Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@...aro.org>,
Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] dt-bindings: soc: samsung: usi: replace USI_V2 in
constants with USI_MODE
On 06/01/2025 08:41, Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
> On 1/6/25 09:36, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>> Hiya,
>>
>> On 1/5/25 4:03 PM, Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
>>> +#define USI_MODE_NONE 0
>>> +#define USI_MODE_UART 1
>>> +#define USI_MODE_SPI 2
>>> +#define USI_MODE_I2C 3
>> USI_CONFIG register refers to the protocol selection with USI_I2C,
>> USI_SPI, USI_UART. How about getting rid of the MODE from the name?
>
> I thought about that too but I believe that mentioning that these constants
> are for mode selection in their name is generally a good practice. Let me know
> if dropping _MODE is really needed.
I am fine with both, MODE feels a bit more descriptive indicating how
the USI should be configured.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists