Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Nov 2021 18:59:38 +0300 | From | Serge Semin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] spi: dw: Replace DWC_HSSI capability with IP-core version checker |
| |
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 05:19:28PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 5:08 PM Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 04:35:58PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 01:30:26AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > ... > > > > > /* DW SPI controller capabilities */ > > > > #define DW_SPI_CAP_CS_OVERRIDE BIT(0) > > > > #define DW_SPI_CAP_KEEMBAY_MST BIT(1) > > > > -#define DW_SPI_CAP_DWC_HSSI BIT(2) > > > > -#define DW_SPI_CAP_DFS32 BIT(3) > > > > +#define DW_SPI_CAP_DFS32 BIT(2) > > > > > In one patch you move this in the file upper. > > > Here you reshuffling it due to dropping one bit. > > > > > > Now I'm wondering if you may split these two into a separate patch, which > > > brings us to simple > > > > > > -#define DW_SPI_CAP_DWC_HSSI BIT(3) > > > > > > here. > > > > I can change the bit-numbers assignment in the previous patch, which > > moves this block of macros up to the top of the file. Thus we'll > > have just a single > > -#define DW_SPI_CAP_DWC_HSSI BIT(3) > > here. What do you think? Is that what you meant? > > I think that reassignment doesn't fit the previous patch per se, hence > I proposed to have yet another one,
> But in any case it's a minor > thingy.
Since I have to resend the series one more time I'll do as you suggested and unpin the bit numbering change into a separate patch.
-Sergey
> > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko
| |