[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <764e77e2-303f-4603-8819-ec3116c85c02@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 14:55:40 +0800
From: Haixu Cui <quic_haixcui@...cinc.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>, <harald.mommer@....qualcomm.com>,
<quic_msavaliy@...cinc.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
<virtio-dev@...ts.linux.dev>, <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
<linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<hdanton@...a.com>, <qiang4.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
<alex.bennee@...aro.org>, <quic_ztu@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] virtio-spi: Add virtio-spi.h
On 8/28/2025 6:34 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 05:19:03PM +0800, Haixu Cui wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/21/2025 4:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> +
>>>> +/* Sample data on trailing clock edge */
>>>> +#define VIRTIO_SPI_CPHA _BITUL(0)
>>>> +/* Clock is high when IDLE */
>>>> +#define VIRTIO_SPI_CPOL _BITUL(1)
>>>> +/* Chip Select is active high */
>>>> +#define VIRTIO_SPI_CS_HIGH _BITUL(2)
>>>> +/* Transmit LSB first */
>>>> +#define VIRTIO_SPI_MODE_LSB_FIRST _BITUL(3)
>>>> +/* Loopback mode */
>>>> +#define VIRTIO_SPI_MODE_LOOP _BITUL(4)
>>>
>>> It is generally preferable to have an enum with just bit
>>> numbers.
>>>
>>>
>>> E.g.
>>>
>>> enum {
>>> VIRTIO_SPI_F_CPHA = 0,
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> Userspace can add _BITUL wrappers itself if it
>>> wants.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Thank you for the suggestion regarding the bit definitions.
>>
>> Would it be acceptable to keep the current macro definitions with _BITUL()
>> because these macros are also used within the virtio SPI driver itself?
>>
>> Looking forward to your guidance.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Haixu Cui
>>
>
>
> move them to the .c file if you want them.
>
Hi Michael,
I've observed that other virtio drivers - such as virtio-i2c and
virtio-net - commonly define feature bits directly in their headers and
use them in their drivers.
To maintain alignment with those drivers and ensure consistency in
usage, I’d prefer to retain the current macro-based approach for
defining feature bits.
Do you think this would be reasonable in this case?
thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists