Re: [PATCH v2 08/19] spi: dw: Discard dma_width member of the dw_spi structure

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 05:16:27PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 04:49:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 04:05:59PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 04:03:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 01:47:47PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > > > This member has exactly the same value as n_bytes of the DW SPI private
> > > > > data object, it's calculated at the same point of the transfer method,
> > > > > n_bytes isn't changed during the whole transfer, and they even serve for
> > > > > the same purpose - keep number of bytes per transfer word, though the
> > > > > dma_width is used only to calculate the DMA source/destination addresses
> > > > > width, which n_bytes could be also utilized for. Taking all of these
> > > > > into account let's replace the dma_width member usage with n_bytes one
> > > > > and remove the former.
> > > > 
> > > > I've no strong opinion about this.
> > > > So, after addressing one issue below,
> > > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > > > -static enum dma_slave_buswidth convert_dma_width(u32 dma_width) {
> > > > > -	if (dma_width == 1)
> > > > 
> > > > > +static enum dma_slave_buswidth convert_dma_width(u8 n_bytes) {
> > > > 
> > > > It seems somebody (maybe even me) at some point messed up between enum
> > > > definition and function that returns an enum.
> > > > 
> > > > For what said, { should be on the separate line.
> > > 
> > > See the patch 16/19: "spi: dw: Cleanup generic DW DMA code namings"
> > > in this series.
> > 
> > Since you are touching that line here, it makes sense to do it here rather than
> > ping-pong to other patch in very same series.
> 
> You didn't open the patch I referred to, did you?

Patches in the series are going on purpose. I look at them in the sequence of
the appearance. But okay, I looked at it and I found what I expected. I think
that you may reorder patch 16 to be one right after renaming module.

> If you did, you would have
> seen that I touched that line there too in the framework of the naming cleanup
> procedure. So please, stop wasting my time with trivial stuff.

Haven't you missed my tag? It means I spent *my* time on *your* stuff. Please,
be respectful to reviewers.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko