[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <851b7d08-3e77-4344-97d1-9d60f1fb8762@baylibre.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:21:56 -0500
From: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
Cc: Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Nuno Sá
<nuno.sa@...log.com>, Da Xue <da@...re.computer>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ad7949: use spi_is_bpw_supported()
On 6/11/25 10:15 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:04:58AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
>> Use spi_is_bpw_supported() instead of directly accessing spi->controller
>> ->bits_per_word_mask. bits_per_word_mask may be 0, which implies that
>> 8-bits-per-word is supported. spi_is_bpw_supported() takes this into
>> account while spi_ctrl_mask == SPI_BPW_MASK(8) does not.
>
>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-spi/c8b8a963-6cef-4c9b-bfef-dab2b7bd0b0f@sirena.org.uk/
>
> Reported-by yourself. I'm wondering if the Closes adds a value in this case.
> Otherwise I can do the same to maybe 10% of my patches, for instance. But
> I don't think I put Closes tag on whatever improvement potential bug fix
> I do report (read: notice) myself.
I included it so that Da Xue will know that this has been resolved and
doesn't need to do anything more. Normally I would have not included
it though.
>
>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>
>
> Code wise LGTM,
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists