Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Jul 2018 16:30:34 +0100 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 10/15] spi: img-spfi: Implement dual and quad mode |
| |
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:20:05PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> #define SPFI_CONTROL_GET_DMA BIT(9) > -#define SPFI_CONTROL_SE BIT(8) > +#define SPFI_CONTROL_SE BIT(8) > +#define SPFI_CONTROL_TX_RX BIT(1)
Random reindent of _SE there?
> + /* > + * Disable SPFI for it not to interfere with > + * pending transactions > + */ > + spfi_writel(spfi, spfi_readl(spfi, SPFI_CONTROL) > + & ~SPFI_CONTROL_SPFI_EN, SPFI_CONTROL); > return 0;
The indentation on the second line of the write is very confusing, it should be indented relative to the first line.
> + if (!list_is_last(&xfer->transfer_list, &master->cur_msg->transfers) && > + /* > + * For duplex mode (both the tx and rx buffers are !NULL) the > + * CMD, ADDR, and DUMMY byte parts of the transaction register > + * should always be 0 and therefore the pending transfer > + * technique cannot be used. > + */ > + (xfer->tx_buf) && (!xfer->rx_buf) && > + (xfer->len <= SPFI_DATA_REQUEST_MAX_SIZE) && !is_pending) { > + transact = (1 & SPFI_TRANSACTION_CMD_MASK) <<
This is again *really* hard to read - having the comment in the middle of the condidional for the if statement, then indenting the code within the if statement to the same depth is just super confusing. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |