lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-15 17:01    [W:2.397 / U:1.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site