[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aEmYwVx73rrgNfN9@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:54:57 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
To: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
Cc: Da Xue <da@...re.computer>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Rui Miguel Silva <rmfrfs@...il.com>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC] spi: expand bits_per_word_mask to 64 bits
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 09:16:06AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> On 6/10/25 7:05 PM, Da Xue wrote:
...
> > struct gb_spilib {
> > - u32 bits_per_word_mask;
> > + u64 bits_per_word_mask;
>
> This is assigned by:
>
> spi->bits_per_word_mask = le32_to_cpu(response.bits_per_word_mask);
>
> in gb_spi_get_master_config(), so changing to u64 doesn't have any
> effect and should likely be omitted to avoid confusion.
>
> (The response struct is defined by a communication protocol and can't be
> changed, otherwise it would break the communications.)
Perhaps the name of the field should be different to avoid appearance of
the similar changes in the future (esp. if this series in general makes
the upstream)?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists