On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 6:06 PM Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/4/20 5:02 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:...
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 10:33 PM Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1/30/20 10:37 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:09 PM Eddie James <eajames@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Oh, I see now, thanks!Why to have duplication then?No, it's not the same, as dev here is the SPI controller. I'll add a+ struct device *dev;Isn't fsl->dev the same?
Perhaps kernel doc to explain the difference?
comment.
Nothing is being duplicated, the two variables are storing entirely
different information, both of which are necessary for each SPI
controller that this driver is driving.
...
For me it looks likeWhy not to call put_unaligned() how the tail in this case (it's 0 orNo, these are shift in/out operations. The read register will also have+ for (i = 0; i < num_bytes; ++i)Redundant & 0xffULL part.
+ rx[i] = (u8)((in >> (8 * ((num_bytes - 1) - i))) & 0xffULL);
Isn't it NIH of get_unalinged_be64 / le64 or something similar?
previous operations data in them and must be extracted with only the
correct number of bytes.
can be easily made to be 0) will affect the result?
The shift-in is not the same as any byte-swap or unaligned operation.
For however many bytes we've read, we start at that many bytes
left-shifted in the register and copy out to our buffer, moving right
for each next byte... I don't think there is an existing function for
this operation.
u8 tmp[8];
put_unaligned_be64(in, tmp);
memcpy(rx, tmp, num_bytes);
put_unaligned*() is just a method to unroll the value to the u8 buffer.
See, for example, linux/unaligned/be_byteshift.h implementation.
Ditto.Ditto.+ return num_bytes;Ditto as for above function. (put_unaligned ...)
+}
+static int fsi_spi_data_out(u64 *out, const u8 *tx, int len)
+{
I don't understand how this could work for transfers of less than 8
bytes, any put_unaligned would access memory that it doesn't own.
+}