Messages in this thread | | | From | Michal Suchanek <> | Date | Tue, 14 Jun 2016 06:34:45 +0200 | Subject | Re: [linux-sunxi] [PATCH v3 10/13] spi: sunxi: merge sun4i and sun6i SPI driver |
| |
Hello,
On 14 June 2016 at 01:43, Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Michal, > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:46 AM, Michal Suchanek <hramrach@gmail.com> wrote: >> The drivers are very similar and share multiple flaws which needed >> separate fixes for both drivers. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/spi/Kconfig | 8 +- >> drivers/spi/Makefile | 1 - >> drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c | 156 +++++++++++-- >> drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c | 598 ------------------------------------------------ >> 4 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 620 deletions(-) >> delete mode 100644 drivers/spi/spi-sun6i.c >> >> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c b/drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c >> index 0b8e6c6..c76f8e4 100644 >> --- a/drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c >> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-sun4i.c >> @@ -279,9 +321,14 @@ static int sunxi_spi_transfer_one(struct spi_master *master, >> reg = sunxi_spi_read(sspi, SUNXI_TFR_CTL_REG); >> >> /* Reset FIFOs */ >> - sunxi_spi_write(sspi, SUNXI_TFR_CTL_REG, >> - reg | sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_RF_RST) | >> - sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_TF_RST)); >> + if (sspi->type == SPI_SUN4I) >> + sunxi_spi_write(sspi, SUNXI_TFR_CTL_REG, >> + reg | sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_RF_RST) | >> + sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_TF_RST)); >> + else >> + sunxi_spi_write(sspi, SUNXI_FIFO_CTL_REG, >> + sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_RF_RST) | >> + sspi_bits(sspi, SUNXI_CTL_TF_RST)); > > If we're already doing different stuff for each generation of the IP, > why not just use the register offsets and bit definitions directly?
Because having (*sspi->regmap)[SUNXI_FIFO_CTL_REG] all over the place makes my eyes bleed and you cannot use the check that you are accessing a register that actually exists.
>> @@ -491,10 +558,37 @@ static int sunxi_spi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> } >> >> sspi->master = master; >> - sspi->fifo_depth = SUN4I_FIFO_DEPTH; >> - sspi->type = SPI_SUN4I; >> - sspi->regmap = &sun4i_regmap; >> - sspi->bitmap = &sun4i_bitmap; >> + if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, SUN4I_COMPATIBLE)) { >> + sspi->fifo_depth = SUN4I_FIFO_DEPTH; >> + sspi->type = SPI_SUN4I; >> + sspi->regmap = &sun4i_regmap; >> + sspi->bitmap = &sun4i_bitmap; >> + } else if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node, >> + SUN6I_COMPATIBLE)) { >> + sspi->fifo_depth = SUN6I_FIFO_DEPTH; >> + sspi->type = SPI_SUN6I; >> + sspi->regmap = &sun6i_regmap; >> + sspi->bitmap = &sun6i_bitmap; > > Can you store data in the match table instead of doing this?
That might be nicer. Will look into this.
Thanks
Michal
| |